Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12

 

2008-08-21 01:50:45
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I think our definitions of rich are different. Bill Gates is not going to spend his money any different because the U.S. Government took a few mill off his taxes. That guy who owns the successful restaurant chain and is thinking of expanding onto the east coast...that's the guy that where the extra money needs to go to where it would practically directly create more jobs.

Of course we all live off the rich. The obscenely rich aren't going to change their spending habits because we cut them a little slack. We should be targeting the ones where it will.
Bill Gates has done everything he has done because of smart money handling. In the early days of his career what would have it been like if you had your way and he was fuckin ass rapped every April 15th and his accomplishments and efforts were distributed " to make it fair".

Also your verbage using the word "target" is apropos considering targeting the rich for punishment for achieving and being smart with THEIR money, is EXACTLY what you would have done to them.

You do realize it is THEIR money that you want. What is so fair about rapping and stealing from and PUNISHING a person who is smart enough to take care of themselves finacnially when others are not?
Bill Gates earned his money from the computer industry.

For about 30 years the entire development of computers was done purely at tax payer expense.

There was absolutely no possibility that Bill Gates could have paid for the research himself.

By allowing Bill Gates to use this publicly funded research to earn private profits he effectively recievced a milti-million dollar handout from the government to get started.

Bill Gates has probably gained more from mass public spending than anyone else in the world. If people weren't 'fuckin ass raped every April 15th' he could be homeless today for all we know.
Right on, the Pentagon-budget and economic stimulation from the government in hi-tech industry is what allowed the development of the home-computers. You'll also notice a huge increase in public spending by the government in these sectors historically right before the release of the highly-hyped 'fourth generation' of personal computers... look it up, those badboys had some mean hardware!

Bill Gates very much had the ambition to "put a computer on every desk in every home"- but no single person, business or corporation has the means to research, develop and finance such an objective. The actual development and pioneering of all the new technology and hardware was entirely government-funded by your tax dollars. He was a lucky guy and rode the wave of home-computers and capitalised on the opportunity... he dropped out of Harvard because he saw it was an easy way to make a buck, not because he wanted to be "raped" on taxes mercilessly for an extra 3-4 years over all his graduate friends. The government was already spending millions of dollars to finance development of IBM technology, Bill Gates just wanted a more consumer-friendly home version of this.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-21 01:53:02)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-21 04:02:02
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7096|Belgium

lowing wrote:

Any wonder why the homeless would be excited to vote for a liberal? Could it have anything to do with taking more money from the EARNERS and dispersing to the Non-earners? To steal from the achievers and disperse it amongst the NON-achievers. After all, the achievers worked for their money, why should the be entitled to it? Vote for Obama and he will bring the needed "change" that will pander to the non-educated, non-ambitious and reward them for their lack of effort. Hell the liberals will even come and get you registered. Yeah I want a president popular with "African Americans" because he is "African American" ( which he isn't) regardless of the issues and popular with the worthless because he will steal more of my money for "fair" disbursement among the masses. All the right reasons to vote for a candidate.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/app … GECAROUSEL

God, I hate liberals
I agree with Lowing on this one, I really do.

Homeless people should not be able to vote. Period. They are given handouts by the gvt so they should STFU.

And while we're busy changing the voting system, let's make some other adjustments.  Only smart people should vote, so only people with a degree from a university should be able to vote.

A voter should also be mature, so he should be at least 40 yo. No young ones, they only play video games.

And woman, what do they know about politics? They only care about who looks nicer, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Maybe we should also make wealth a condition, e.g. annual income should be at least $ 5,000,000.00.

So, that narrows it down.
2008-08-21 04:03:05
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7095|Canberra, AUS

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Any wonder why the homeless would be excited to vote for a liberal? Could it have anything to do with taking more money from the EARNERS and dispersing to the Non-earners? To steal from the achievers and disperse it amongst the NON-achievers. After all, the achievers worked for their money, why should the be entitled to it? Vote for Obama and he will bring the needed "change" that will pander to the non-educated, non-ambitious and reward them for their lack of effort. Hell the liberals will even come and get you registered. Yeah I want a president popular with "African Americans" because he is "African American" ( which he isn't) regardless of the issues and popular with the worthless because he will steal more of my money for "fair" disbursement among the masses. All the right reasons to vote for a candidate.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/app … GECAROUSEL

God, I hate liberals
I agree with Lowing on this one, I really do.

Homeless people should not be able to vote. Period. They are given handouts by the gvt so they should STFU.

And while we're busy changing the voting system, let's make some other adjustments.  Only smart people should vote, so only people with a degree from a university should be able to vote.

A voter should also be mature, so he should be at least 40 yo. No young ones, they only play video games.

And woman, what do they know about politics? They only care about who looks nicer, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Maybe we should also make wealth a condition, e.g. annual income should be at least $ 5,000,000.00.

So, that narrows it down.
My sarcasm meter is wacked, don't mind me

Last edited by Spark (2008-08-21 04:03:49)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-08-21 04:03:52
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6711|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

A hypothetical scenario for you lowing...

A young American called Bob with a small business and a loving wife and family goes off to Iraq to serve with his National Guard unit on a year long deployment. While he's there he sees some incredibly depressing and soul destroying shit, meanwhile his business back home begins to falter because his wife can't balance her own work with the needs of the business and the needs of the family. Trouble begins to brew in Bob's relationship with his wife as a result of the stress and things only get worse as the weeks and months tick by. The bills keep coming at home as Bob's family's economic situation worsens, then one day towards the end of his tour while out on a patrol he gets caught in a roadside bombing and loses his right arm.

On his return home Bob finds a business that has all but disappeared down the toilet; plagued by nightmares and with a head full of violence and nihilism Bob's wife begins to feel she no longer knows the man she married. As the business folds and his depression continues to get worse Bob and his wife decide to part ways, the judge awarding custody of the kids to Bob's wife because of a psychiatrist's report suggesting that Bob may have signs of post traumatic stress disorder. Now living on his own and with no proper source of income Bob tries to overcome his depression and look for work that can be done by a man with only one arm, the weeks tick by with no signs of success...there isn't as much work going these days because of the economic downturn. Then one day Bob's landlord serves him with an eviction notice, Bob has to pack his bags. Fast forward a few months and Bob is not looking too good, he looks just like any other homeless person except minus one arm.

Then one day while sitting on the kerb outside a busy grocery store looking for any change that passers-by might be able to spare Bob meets a guy called lowing who throws him a look of disgust...lowing then goes home and posts two threads on a forum, one about the war on terror and how brave Americans are fighting Islamic extremism in the name of freedom and democracy and another complaining about the mentality of bleeding heart liberals who want homeless people to have the right to vote for a President who might better their situation.
EASY:

He is a veteran who is both physically and mentally disabled so right there he is worthy of help and my sympathy. That should be enough to answer your post HOWEVER,

He does not have a history of social welfare.
He HAS a history of achievment in society, IE school, work, you say he owned a business.
Well you don't necessarily need academic achievement to run a successful business, there are millionaire businessmen out there who can't read or write (I remember seeing a program on channel4 about the owner of a huge waste disposal company who never finished school and was pretty much illiterate).

But back to Bob, I outlined that scenario to give an idea of the kind of stories that lie behind these homeless people that we step over in the street every day. I find it strange that so many Americans are happier to let independent charities deal with these problems instead of dedicating a certain amount of tax money to the problem when so much tax money goes to the problems of Iraqis, Aghganis and Israelis.

Supposedly as many as 200'000 war veterans sleep homeless in America on any given night, perhaps Obama's "Communist" ideals might help these people who have given so much for a country that gives so often gives very little back.
2008-08-21 05:48:15
imortal
Member
+240|7085|Austin, TX

Braddock wrote:

But back to Bob, I outlined that scenario to give an idea of the kind of stories that lie behind these homeless people that we step over in the street every day. I find it strange that so many Americans are happier to let independent charities deal with these problems instead of dedicating a certain amount of tax money to the problem when so much tax money goes to the problems of Iraqis, Aghganis and Israelis.

Supposedly as many as 200'000 war veterans sleep homeless in America on any given night, perhaps Obama's "Communist" ideals might help these people who have given so much for a country that gives so often gives very little back.
Braddock, you are very good at painting a pretty picture.  We all present the 'evidence' we have in the best possible light to enforce our ideas.  We use numbers if they will sway us; we use percentages to bring 'perspective.'

The problem is that in order to correct that particular problem (i.e. homelss veterens), democrats propose legislation which have profound effects in areas much beyond that limited purvue.

I am a veteran, and I am in the VA system.  I also work for a company that brings me into regular contact with a lot of homeless veterans.  I see these guys a LOT.  Most (nearly all) of the ones I see on a professional basis also have mental disorders or have or currently abuse drugs.  I do not know if the drugs are what caused them to be homeless or are a result of it, but it is hard to get your priorities straight and improve your situation.  The VA, by the way, has their money counted as "military spending," for those of you urging on having it cut so much.  As for the homeless with mental disorders, there is something that should be done, but not by the government.

I know, that is what all of you in Europe, and some of you in the US, can't understand about us.  You think the government is there to help you.  That is not the American point of view.  The government is a necessary evil to be tolerated, but never trusted.  In the point of view of many of us in the US, the federal government system has become bloated beyond what we ever wanted or our forefathers feared.  Ever since the Civil War, more and more power has been taken from the states, who were supposedly the holders of the majority of political power, and consolodated into our federal government.  (Those of you in the EU, beware.  Give it a couple hundred years, and your nations will have about the same amount of sovereign power as, say... Iowa.)

As for spending money in Iraq and Afghanastan, one of the things the federal government is SUPPOSED to do is fight foreign wars, and to look out for our national intrests overseas.  Caring for our homeless should be an act of charity provided for by the Christian sould who see them every day.  I give to a charity that provides meals to the homeless and those in need in my community.  If the government would not tax me so much, I would give more.  My wife also donates money to our church who supports 'those in need.'  I am sure she would also donate more.

What really galls me is that the Liberals in our city spend more money saving animals then they do the human beings on the street, while clamouring for the government to do something to help them.  To me, it is their priorities who are incomprehensable to me.
2008-08-21 05:58:09
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6962|Texas - Bigger than France

God Save the Queen wrote:

Obama '08
Phelps '08
2008-08-21 06:13:48
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6711|Éire
RE: imortal

Good post. I can fully identify with your reservations regarding the Federal Government and am myself not happy with what appears to be the same centralistation of power going on here currently in the EU. However, I strongly believe that the Government should work for the people and should meet the needs of people as best it can (within reason obviously). It is the people that fund the Government, it is the people that pay the politicians wages, it is the people that elect politicians to office and hence the Government has a duty to its people.

Obviously I can't criticize the entire American tax system as I do not have a full grasp of the mechanics of how it works. I am glad to hear the military budget puts a certain amount of tax dollars into care for veterans - you don't know what percentage of the overall military budget it is by any chance? While charities always serve an important role in tackling many social problems I still think it's something of a travesty when a nation that is swimming in wealth saddles the majority of the responsibility for tackling poverty onto the shoulders of charity groups.

I am saddened that you resorted to the "L" word in your last paragraph though! I would be considered liberal by a lot of people on this forum but I would never put the lives of animals above humans, that is a bullshit tree-hugger mentality, please don't bundle all people who lean left of the political spectrum in together!
2008-08-21 06:37:24
imortal
Member
+240|7085|Austin, TX

Braddock wrote:

RE: imortal
I am saddened that you resorted to the "L" word in your last paragraph though! I would be considered liberal by a lot of people on this forum but I would never put the lives of animals above humans, that is a bullshit tree-hugger mentality, please don't bundle all people who lean left of the political spectrum in together!
I will get to the rest soon.  As to the liberal part, I refer to the American brand of Liberalism.  Just come here to Austin sometime.  The college activism at UT is a wellspring of liberal activities here.  You don't see the bumperstickers like I do.  There is a local business here that sells nothing except anti-Bush bumperstickers.  There is liberal, and then there is Liberal.  I, back in my single days, had a woman totally into me on a date, until she found out I voted for Bush; she walked out 30 seconds later, waiting only to tell me what a neo-con piece of greedy trash she thought I was.  Again, it is perspective.  Until you can see American liberalism up close, give us a bit of leeway, ok?

Look here
Austin is as liberal as liberal really gets in today's American political climate. As stated in previous comments by others, the influx of people into the community to work for locally based computer giants has most assuredly changed Austin's politicial milieu. This insurgence of politically moderate and conservative practitioners has changed Austin's left wing because they have served notice that the lefties are not the only ones in charge anymore. Hopefully, this should motivate the liberal wing of Austin's political community to take action.. There is nothing wrong with a little debate and political friction in Austin. In fact, liberals should HAVE to fight for their political stances rather than searching around the country for communities where they can preach to the converted.

Last edited by imortal (2008-08-21 06:40:43)

2008-08-21 06:48:14
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6711|Éire

imortal wrote:

Braddock wrote:

RE: imortal
I am saddened that you resorted to the "L" word in your last paragraph though! I would be considered liberal by a lot of people on this forum but I would never put the lives of animals above humans, that is a bullshit tree-hugger mentality, please don't bundle all people who lean left of the political spectrum in together!
I will get to the rest soon.  As to the liberal part, I refer to the American brand of Liberalism.  Just come here to Austin sometime.  The college activism at UT is a wellspring of liberal activities here.  You don't see the bumperstickers like I do.  There is a local business here that sells nothing except anti-Bush bumperstickers.  There is liberal, and then there is Liberal.  I, back in my single days, had a woman totally into me on a date, until she found out I voted for Bush; she walked out 30 seconds later, waiting only to tell me what a neo-con piece of greedy trash she thought I was.  Again, it is perspective.  Until you can see American liberalism up close, give us a bit of leeway, ok?

Look here
Austin is as liberal as liberal really gets in today's American political climate. As stated in previous comments by others, the influx of people into the community to work for locally based computer giants has most assuredly changed Austin's politicial milieu. This insurgence of politically moderate and conservative practitioners has changed Austin's left wing because they have served notice that the lefties are not the only ones in charge anymore. Hopefully, this should motivate the liberal wing of Austin's political community to take action.. There is nothing wrong with a little debate and political friction in Austin. In fact, liberals should HAVE to fight for their political stances rather than searching around the country for communities where they can preach to the converted.
America has all the extremes and everything in between I guess...nobody does extreme conservatism like you guys either!
2008-08-21 07:10:13
imortal
Member
+240|7085|Austin, TX

Braddock wrote:

I can fully identify with your reservations regarding the Federal Government and am myself not happy with what appears to be the same centralistation of power going on here currently in the EU. However, I strongly believe that the Government should work for the people and should meet the needs of people as best it can (within reason obviously). It is the people that fund the Government, it is the people that pay the politicians wages, it is the people that elect politicians to office and hence the Government has a duty to its people.
And I think that people should work for each other.  The government should only be used when the problem or issue is too big to be taken care of by the individual or community, in order to provide a neutral forum, or if there is a dispute between different jurisdictions or nationalities.  But the govenment should be used as little as possible.  If the people can provide for themselves, or for each other, then the government should not be used at all.  The less the government is needed, and the less power it has, the smaller it is, and the less tax money they need.  And that means more money in my pocket, making me more able to help myself or those I care for.

I know, it is an ideal; I will never see it.  People are not drawn to government out of a need for public service, but are drawn to power.  And they want to draw more power to them.  It is inevitable.  You see it now in the EU.  It has to be nipped in the bud or it will grow to a behemoth.

One of the things I really despise about the government helping people is that it makes a few assumptions.  That I am either not willing or capable of helping myself or helping others myself.  That they (in the government) better know how to help, and who to help, than I do.  It is also a problem that, when the government gets involved, it is no longer charity.  It is no longer voluntary.  I am not now a person helping, but I am a financial resource for the government to draw on.  That irks me.
2008-08-21 07:13:37
imortal
Member
+240|7085|Austin, TX

Braddock wrote:

[America has all the extremes and everything in between I guess...nobody does extreme conservatism like you guys either!
Well, we do extremism well in pretty much any form, at least.  Not so much "in between."  A fault of Americans is we tend strongly toward extremism. "If some is good, more is better."  You can look at anything.  Alchohol intake, diets, the political system, our movies (bigger!  better!  more!), our consumer products; hell, even our waistlines!  Moderation is not a word the average American pays much attention to, no matter how much they hear it.
2008-08-21 07:28:58
JahManRed
wank
+646|7048|IRELAND

Braddock wrote:

RE: imortal

Good post. I can fully identify with your reservations regarding the Federal Government and am myself not happy with what appears to be the same centralistation of power going on here currently in the EU. However, I strongly believe that the Government should work for the people and should meet the needs of people as best it can (within reason obviously). It is the people that fund the Government, it is the people that pay the politicians wages, it is the people that elect politicians to office and hence the Government has a duty to its people.
Tony Blair brought us new labour. The main "new" thing he invented (and degraded UK politics forever) was the UK's first ever Spin department.

This department has a budget of millions with hundred if not thousands of workers. Their single roll is to convince the UK public to do what the politicians want, often against the publics best interests. It is a smoke screen department which deliberately confused and misleads the public so the politicians can pressure their own addenda which often favours big business not the common man.
2008-08-21 08:26:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock:

Now that we have taken care of Bob, lets focus our attention to Jack.

Jack dropped out of school because he thought he was too cool for it. He decided he could make an easy buck by dealing drugs. He was successful enough at it that he got comfortable and lazy to the point where he sold to a cop. He is convicted then goes to jail. In jail he as all the time in the word to finish his GED and yes even college.He decides not to take advantage. He also gets tattooed out the ass. He thinks he is so cool and is accepted in prison.

When he gets out he is started off at a halfway house and assigned a parole officer. He is also given a job to help he start over ( tax breaks to those that hire convicts) He decides work is not worth the hassle and starts dealing again, breaking his parole. Back to jail Jack goes. Released 2 years later he is pulled over on a DWI and drugs are found in his possession. Back to jail he goes. 2 years later he is released, he is homeless and on the streets, when all of a sudden a liberal finds him and takes him to register to vote for Obama because life has not been fair to him and Obama is going to "CHANGE" all of that.


Now, tell me what Jack deserves from the tax payer.
Havn't finished with bob yet kthx

So bob, a vet with ONE ARM, a case of POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER, who is currently WITHOUT FIXED ADDRESS, and with little or NO MONEY IN THE BANK is just meant to walk into the nearest job vacancy?


How in your addled mind did that ever make sense?
Actually I did respond to 'Bob" look back.
2008-08-21 08:29:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


I think our definitions of rich are different. Bill Gates is not going to spend his money any different because the U.S. Government took a few mill off his taxes. That guy who owns the successful restaurant chain and is thinking of expanding onto the east coast...that's the guy that where the extra money needs to go to where it would practically directly create more jobs.

Of course we all live off the rich. The obscenely rich aren't going to change their spending habits because we cut them a little slack. We should be targeting the ones where it will.
Bill Gates has done everything he has done because of smart money handling. In the early days of his career what would have it been like if you had your way and he was fuckin ass rapped every April 15th and his accomplishments and efforts were distributed " to make it fair".

Also your verbage using the word "target" is apropos considering targeting the rich for punishment for achieving and being smart with THEIR money, is EXACTLY what you would have done to them.

You do realize it is THEIR money that you want. What is so fair about rapping and stealing from and PUNISHING a person who is smart enough to take care of themselves finacnially when others are not?
Bill Gates earned his money from the computer industry.

For about 30 years the entire development of computers was done purely at tax payer expense.

There was absolutely no possibility that Bill Gates could have paid for the research himself.

By allowing Bill Gates to use this publicly funded research to earn private profits he effectively recievced a milti-million dollar handout from the government to get started.

Bill Gates has probably gained more from mass public spending than anyone else in the world. If people weren't 'fuckin ass raped every April 15th' he could be homeless today for all we know.
Bill Gates developed software that ran on computers, I guess Henry Ford deserves n ocredit or money for his advancements in cars because the wheel was already invented.
2008-08-21 08:30:47
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7127|67.222.138.85

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:


I wonder how many of us would loose our jobs the second rich people STOPPED spending their money, or risking their money? So even after all I have listed, you still do not think it is the rich that the rest of us live off us huh?
I think our definitions of rich are different. Bill Gates is not going to spend his money any different because the U.S. Government took a few mill off his taxes. That guy who owns the successful restaurant chain and is thinking of expanding onto the east coast...that's the guy that where the extra money needs to go to where it would practically directly create more jobs.

Of course we all live off the rich. The obscenely rich aren't going to change their spending habits because we cut them a little slack. We should be targeting the ones where it will.
Bill Gates has done everything he has done because of smart money handling. In the early days of his career what would have it been like if you had your way and he was fuckin ass rapped every April 15th and his accomplishments and efforts were distributed " to make it fair".

Also your verbage using the word "target" is apropos considering targeting the rich for punishment for achieving and being smart with THEIR money, is EXACTLY what you would have done to them.

You do realize it is THEIR money that you want. What is so fair about rapping and stealing from and PUNISHING a person who is smart enough to take care of themselves finacnially when others are not?
Do you not think taxes need to be paid or something? If that's what you think...go somewhere else. If you think taxes should only serve to pay for government necessities like infrastructure and common defense, and not to support people that cannot support themselves by their own merit, then we agree here.

Paying taxes does not mean Bill Gates was "ass raped" by the IRS, and even paying taxes (or at least I assume so, maybe that's his secret) he has obviously become successful. I assume here that we are talking about how tax laws should be changed in the future, where a conservative would rather leave them the same or lower them, and a liberal would most likely raise them with an emphasis on the rich. That is why I said target, because liberals are not going to go for fair tax laws.

Everyone has to pay taxes. If there are to be any tax breaks however, they should be placed on the middle upper end of the spectrum, because that is where the most immediate economic benefit is seen. You're being extremely idealistic lowing, an especially liberal trait.
2008-08-21 08:31:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

The thing that cracks me up about Lowing is he earnestly believes that his views are " normal "and shared by the majority of society..
News Flash, the majority of society are sick to death of paying for leeches, illegal aliens and dead beats. So yeah my views are pretty normal among those that have to pay for all this shit.
2008-08-21 08:33:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

oChaos.Haze wrote:

lowing, just out of curiosity, are you christian?
nope,

do you really wanna talk about Christianity and hypocrisy, start another thread, I promise you I will be there.
2008-08-21 08:34:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

Poseidon wrote:

oChaos.Haze wrote:

lowing, just out of curiosity, are you christian?
After a huge-ass argument with him in a thread about muslims (go figure), he told me he was an atheist.
actually  I said I was agnostic
2008-08-21 08:35:11
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london
lowing.  has anyone told you that you are very self centered?  please dont reply with the "if wanting the blah blah blah makes me self centered...."
2008-08-21 08:36:17
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7127|67.222.138.85

God Save the Queen wrote:

lowing.  has anyone told you that you are very self centered?  please dont reply with the "if wanting the blah blah blah makes me self centered...."
Everyone is extremely self-centered. If you don't think you are you're selfishly lying to yourself.
2008-08-21 08:38:01
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

lowing.  has anyone told you that you are very self centered?  please dont reply with the "if wanting the blah blah blah makes me self centered...."
Everyone is extremely self-centered. If you don't think you are you're selfishly lying to yourself.
bullshit.  human beings are self centered to a point.  But Im not with that whole libertarian mindset.  That shit disgusts me.
2008-08-21 08:40:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

A hypothetical scenario for you lowing...

A young American called Bob with a small business and a loving wife and family goes off to Iraq to serve with his National Guard unit on a year long deployment. While he's there he sees some incredibly depressing and soul destroying shit, meanwhile his business back home begins to falter because his wife can't balance her own work with the needs of the business and the needs of the family. Trouble begins to brew in Bob's relationship with his wife as a result of the stress and things only get worse as the weeks and months tick by. The bills keep coming at home as Bob's family's economic situation worsens, then one day towards the end of his tour while out on a patrol he gets caught in a roadside bombing and loses his right arm.

On his return home Bob finds a business that has all but disappeared down the toilet; plagued by nightmares and with a head full of violence and nihilism Bob's wife begins to feel she no longer knows the man she married. As the business folds and his depression continues to get worse Bob and his wife decide to part ways, the judge awarding custody of the kids to Bob's wife because of a psychiatrist's report suggesting that Bob may have signs of post traumatic stress disorder. Now living on his own and with no proper source of income Bob tries to overcome his depression and look for work that can be done by a man with only one arm, the weeks tick by with no signs of success...there isn't as much work going these days because of the economic downturn. Then one day Bob's landlord serves him with an eviction notice, Bob has to pack his bags. Fast forward a few months and Bob is not looking too good, he looks just like any other homeless person except minus one arm.

Then one day while sitting on the kerb outside a busy grocery store looking for any change that passers-by might be able to spare Bob meets a guy called lowing who throws him a look of disgust...lowing then goes home and posts two threads on a forum, one about the war on terror and how brave Americans are fighting Islamic extremism in the name of freedom and democracy and another complaining about the mentality of bleeding heart liberals who want homeless people to have the right to vote for a President who might better their situation.
EASY:

He is a veteran who is both physically and mentally disabled so right there he is worthy of help and my sympathy. That should be enough to answer your post HOWEVER,

He does not have a history of social welfare.
He HAS a history of achievment in society, IE school, work, you say he owned a business.
Well you don't necessarily need academic achievement to run a successful business, there are millionaire businessmen out there who can't read or write (I remember seeing a program on channel4 about the owner of a huge waste disposal company who never finished school and was pretty much illiterate).

But back to Bob, I outlined that scenario to give an idea of the kind of stories that lie behind these homeless people that we step over in the street every day. I find it strange that so many Americans are happier to let independent charities deal with these problems instead of dedicating a certain amount of tax money to the problem when so much tax money goes to the problems of Iraqis, Aghganis and Israelis.

Supposedly as many as 200'000 war veterans sleep homeless in America on any given night, perhaps Obama's "Communist" ideals might help these people who have given so much for a country that gives so often gives very little back.
Hmmmmm, ya didn't balk at my solution for "Bob" so you must agree. Veterans that are suffering from PTSD or any other disability is a part of the criteria that I feel the tax payers should support AS I HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED. Handicapped and taking care of those that are unable to help themselves. I already explained how "Bob" should be supported.
2008-08-21 08:42:11
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7163|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Lowing you are the American Alf Garnett!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Garnett
2008-08-21 08:44:13
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7127|67.222.138.85

God Save the Queen wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

lowing.  has anyone told you that you are very self centered?  please dont reply with the "if wanting the blah blah blah makes me self centered...."
Everyone is extremely self-centered. If you don't think you are you're selfishly lying to yourself.
bullshit.  human beings are self centered to a point.  But Im not with that whole libertarian mindset.  That shit disgusts me.
Libertarians say leave me alone and I'll leave you alone...it's not self-centered, if they are truly libertarians and not hypocrites then they won't ask you for help when they need it.

Humans do always, 100% what is best for them. That defines what an animal is and how one acts.
2008-08-21 08:49:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


I think our definitions of rich are different. Bill Gates is not going to spend his money any different because the U.S. Government took a few mill off his taxes. That guy who owns the successful restaurant chain and is thinking of expanding onto the east coast...that's the guy that where the extra money needs to go to where it would practically directly create more jobs.

Of course we all live off the rich. The obscenely rich aren't going to change their spending habits because we cut them a little slack. We should be targeting the ones where it will.
Bill Gates has done everything he has done because of smart money handling. In the early days of his career what would have it been like if you had your way and he was fuckin ass rapped every April 15th and his accomplishments and efforts were distributed " to make it fair".

Also your verbage using the word "target" is apropos considering targeting the rich for punishment for achieving and being smart with THEIR money, is EXACTLY what you would have done to them.

You do realize it is THEIR money that you want. What is so fair about rapping and stealing from and PUNISHING a person who is smart enough to take care of themselves finacnially when others are not?
Do you not think taxes need to be paid or something? If that's what you think...go somewhere else. If you think taxes should only serve to pay for government necessities like infrastructure and common defense, and not to support people that cannot support themselves by their own merit, then we agree here.

Paying taxes does not mean Bill Gates was "ass raped" by the IRS, and even paying taxes (or at least I assume so, maybe that's his secret) he has obviously become successful. I assume here that we are talking about how tax laws should be changed in the future, where a conservative would rather leave them the same or lower them, and a liberal would most likely raise them with an emphasis on the rich. That is why I said target, because liberals are not going to go for fair tax laws.

Everyone has to pay taxes. If there are to be any tax breaks however, they should be placed on the middle upper end of the spectrum, because that is where the most immediate economic benefit is seen. You're being extremely idealistic lowing, an especially liberal trait.
No what I am saying is by forcing the rich to pay moretaxes than the rest, you are in fact punishing the rich for being rich by stealing their money.

Why shoud a rich person pay more taxes,( which they already do anyway) than anyone else? Your reasoning is they should pay more because they were smarter than someone else, they made better decisions, and most of all, they have it where you don't and you want it.

I say if you want money so bad, go earn it yourself. I say this a a middle class citizen I am, contrary to popular belief, not rich.

I also admit and take responsisibility for everything I have and everything  I do not have. I blame no one for my problems except me.

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard