Ummmmmmm, you got a question here? Ok? What if?God Save the Queen wrote:
what if youre trying to get employed by the governmen
http://www.wwnytv.net/index.php/2008/08 … ow-up-dss/
Hand me the tissue, this poor woman has been so "unlucky" in life.
Hand me the tissue, this poor woman has been so "unlucky" in life.
Like I said, of course luck has something to do with your life and how successful you are. It's nurture, not nature.lowing wrote:
So you honestly do believe that huh? Well tell ya what, you just sit around the house and never apply yourself and wait and see which kinda "luck" you are afforded. do you wanna make any bets on which it will be? Perhaps you do not believe in luck as much as you want if you are not willing to test it in this way.jord wrote:
You don't think the country or area your were born in has any bearing on your success at life? Yeah, I do think luck has a lot to do with how successful you are in life... Obviously work and other things matter too, but yet, luck is there.lowing wrote:
I see, so I was merely "lucky". I have nothing to do with my successes or failures. It is good luck and bad luck. Any chance you would believe that I actually WORKED for what I have and what I have accomplished?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are a 40 year old ditch digger and never improved yourself, you are an under achiever. It matters not if you like it or not.
You're not bursting my bubble. Things happen to people that they can't control and they have to take up shit dead end jobs to support their family at age 45. An under achiever is someone who has it and throws it away and ends up jobless and homeless. Or never takes up an oppurtunity that goes there way. Some people just don't get the opportunity. People that work just as hard as you if not harder, but just aren't as successful as you because of reasons above.
No, a ditch digger who has an ambition to be a ditch digger is not an under achiever, he has achieved his goal in life, so be it, as long as he does not bitch about all he doesn't have and how the govt. should provide more to him he has my respect.
I am an under-achiever, my dream was to be professional pilot, but, due to the choices I made in life and the lack of ambition to go to college while trying to raise a family, basically laziness, I did not achieve my goal. I am however a private pilot. The difference here is, I know the only reason I did not achieve my goal is due to my own decisions, and lack of motivation. I do not blame anyone for my failure to accomplish my goal other than myself. The govt. , the tax payer nor society owes me shit for my failures. I wasn't "unlucky" I was unmotivated.
I would love for you to try and tell a brain surgeon he was just "lucky".
So you're telling me if a potential Brain Surgeon was born in Somalia with no school for 10 miles and his parents can't afford to pay for it anyway. That he just has to work hard at it? No, there is a certain amount of luck in how your life goes. Whether it be being born into a shithole and not being encouraged by your parents to excel, or being born in an affluent community into a middle class family that has a college fund...
I believe in luck. So after what I've just said are you still going to tell me luck has absolutely no bearing on your success at life?
1. So taxpayers shouldn't be rewarded for their investment but the private sector should?lowing wrote:
1. Bill Gates is not the govt.
2. The tax payer gets rewarded when the govt. does R&D, like I said, YOU ARE TYPING ON IT RIGHT NOW. The PC, the internet all govt. prjects that you now enjoy. I guess you wanna get paid by Bill Gates now, to sit on your ass while he does all the leg work.
2. Last time I checked you have to pay for computers. You seem just fine with giving Bill Gates a massive amount of moneys worth of research for free while the government did pretty much all of the leg work. The costs and risks of developing computers were almost entirely socialized. The profits of this research were entirely privatized.
Again to reiterate what I said and you ignored; I'm not against the system, I just think it's fair to recognise that it is clearly socialization for the rich, hence you can't claim that welfare for the poor is some kind of unjust horror that is inflicted on the rich. Anyone (such as Bill Gates) who works in the high tech industry wouldn't be able to do so if the costs and risks of the high tech industry were not socialized. As socialism for the rich exists it's hardly fair to complain about welfare for the poor. You seem fine with socialism as long as it primarily benefits rich people.
1. I have never advocated the taking care of freeloaders; my argument has been that you can't presume a person's circumstances at face value. A lot of the people that will be empowered by this drive to register 'disenfranchised' citizens will be the same people that have fallen through the cracks of society i.e. people like Bob (who was failed by the military and medical bodies) and Kevin (who was failed as a child by childcare bodies and social services). Are you claiming that would be a bad thing? And btw I did respond to Jack as far as I can remember, if I missed something specific that you want a response to post it again and I'll gladly answer.lowing wrote:
1. I always have recognized and supported those that truely are not capable of doing so. It is just by acknowledging that, your argument for taking care of everyone and sharing the wealth with those that do not contribute falls flat on its ass. You also didn't respond to "Jack", I assume for the same reason
2. you think it is just Bono? Try ALL celebrities, in Hollywood they are all liberals who champion for the common folk, ya know liberals, yet are completely out of touch with real society. They live in a fantasy land and tell the rest of us how we should get along and how we should be spending OUR money. Just like a true liberal.
2. You are bandying about the dreaded "L" word yet again, I would argue that out of touch celebrities don't qualify as liberals, they are misguided Utopianists. Liberalism (at least in the European sense) in this situation would be the advocation of social support structures that provide for the sick, disabled and out of work with checks and balances to make sure the able bodied don't abuse the system...what's so wrong with that?
Not exactly a whole lot of background info on that story but - presuming she is not the victim of multiple rapes, the forgotten widow of a dead soldier, or suffering from major disability - she doesn't appear to have to much right to complain.lowing wrote:
http://www.wwnytv.net/index.php/2008/08/19/police-pregnant-woman-threatens-to-blow-up-dss/
Hand me the tissue, this poor woman has been so "unlucky" in life.
Just for the record lowing, these are not the kind of people I'm talking about when I'm argue the case for social assistance structures.
Are you telling me there are NO doctors in Somolia? I also notice you are not agreeing to put your little theory to the test. Drop out of school, sit on your ass, and lets see which kinda "luck" you will draw. It will be ok, you can always vote for Obama.jord wrote:
Like I said, of course luck has something to do with your life and how successful you are. It's nurture, not nature.lowing wrote:
So you honestly do believe that huh? Well tell ya what, you just sit around the house and never apply yourself and wait and see which kinda "luck" you are afforded. do you wanna make any bets on which it will be? Perhaps you do not believe in luck as much as you want if you are not willing to test it in this way.jord wrote:
You don't think the country or area your were born in has any bearing on your success at life? Yeah, I do think luck has a lot to do with how successful you are in life... Obviously work and other things matter too, but yet, luck is there.
You're not bursting my bubble. Things happen to people that they can't control and they have to take up shit dead end jobs to support their family at age 45. An under achiever is someone who has it and throws it away and ends up jobless and homeless. Or never takes up an oppurtunity that goes there way. Some people just don't get the opportunity. People that work just as hard as you if not harder, but just aren't as successful as you because of reasons above.
No, a ditch digger who has an ambition to be a ditch digger is not an under achiever, he has achieved his goal in life, so be it, as long as he does not bitch about all he doesn't have and how the govt. should provide more to him he has my respect.
I am an under-achiever, my dream was to be professional pilot, but, due to the choices I made in life and the lack of ambition to go to college while trying to raise a family, basically laziness, I did not achieve my goal. I am however a private pilot. The difference here is, I know the only reason I did not achieve my goal is due to my own decisions, and lack of motivation. I do not blame anyone for my failure to accomplish my goal other than myself. The govt. , the tax payer nor society owes me shit for my failures. I wasn't "unlucky" I was unmotivated.
I would love for you to try and tell a brain surgeon he was just "lucky".
So you're telling me if a potential Brain Surgeon was born in Somalia with no school for 10 miles and his parents can't afford to pay for it anyway. That he just has to work hard at it? No, there is a certain amount of luck in how your life goes. Whether it be being born into a shithole and not being encouraged by your parents to excel, or being born in an affluent community into a middle class family that has a college fund...
I believe in luck. So after what I've just said are you still going to tell me luck has absolutely no bearing on your success at life?
I don't go to school... Not that this is about me.lowing wrote:
Are you telling me there are NO doctors in Somolia? I also notice you are not agreeing to put your little theory to the test. Drop out of school, sit on your ass, and lets see which kinda "luck" you will draw. It will be ok, you can always vote for Obama.jord wrote:
Like I said, of course luck has something to do with your life and how successful you are. It's nurture, not nature.lowing wrote:
So you honestly do believe that huh? Well tell ya what, you just sit around the house and never apply yourself and wait and see which kinda "luck" you are afforded. do you wanna make any bets on which it will be? Perhaps you do not believe in luck as much as you want if you are not willing to test it in this way.
No, a ditch digger who has an ambition to be a ditch digger is not an under achiever, he has achieved his goal in life, so be it, as long as he does not bitch about all he doesn't have and how the govt. should provide more to him he has my respect.
I am an under-achiever, my dream was to be professional pilot, but, due to the choices I made in life and the lack of ambition to go to college while trying to raise a family, basically laziness, I did not achieve my goal. I am however a private pilot. The difference here is, I know the only reason I did not achieve my goal is due to my own decisions, and lack of motivation. I do not blame anyone for my failure to accomplish my goal other than myself. The govt. , the tax payer nor society owes me shit for my failures. I wasn't "unlucky" I was unmotivated.
I would love for you to try and tell a brain surgeon he was just "lucky".
So you're telling me if a potential Brain Surgeon was born in Somalia with no school for 10 miles and his parents can't afford to pay for it anyway. That he just has to work hard at it? No, there is a certain amount of luck in how your life goes. Whether it be being born into a shithole and not being encouraged by your parents to excel, or being born in an affluent community into a middle class family that has a college fund...
I believe in luck. So after what I've just said are you still going to tell me luck has absolutely no bearing on your success at life?
I'm not saying luck is the be all and end all of life. Obviously hard work is required. But if you don't see how being born into the place that you where has made life just a little easier then you're taking it for granted.
I can't and probably wouldn't vote for Obama if I lived there anyway...
Yeah yeah yeah, and Henry Ford deserve dick for his work with cars since the wheel was already invented. Your argument is a stretch and quite desporate.PureFodder wrote:
1. So taxpayers shouldn't be rewarded for their investment but the private sector should?lowing wrote:
1. Bill Gates is not the govt.
2. The tax payer gets rewarded when the govt. does R&D, like I said, YOU ARE TYPING ON IT RIGHT NOW. The PC, the internet all govt. prjects that you now enjoy. I guess you wanna get paid by Bill Gates now, to sit on your ass while he does all the leg work.
2. Last time I checked you have to pay for computers. You seem just fine with giving Bill Gates a massive amount of moneys worth of research for free while the government did pretty much all of the leg work. The costs and risks of developing computers were almost entirely socialized. The profits of this research were entirely privatized.
Again to reiterate what I said and you ignored; I'm not against the system, I just think it's fair to recognise that it is clearly socialization for the rich, hence you can't claim that welfare for the poor is some kind of unjust horror that is inflicted on the rich. Anyone (such as Bill Gates) who works in the high tech industry wouldn't be able to do so if the costs and risks of the high tech industry were not socialized. As socialism for the rich exists it's hardly fair to complain about welfare for the poor. You seem fine with socialism as long as it primarily benefits rich people.
2. I am all for socialism when it rewards ambition, effort, motivation etc............If those are the words that discribe the rich in America, the nso be it.
As a middle class American who is forced t ogive his money away to either the rich or the poor, I choose the rich. They will take my money and create with it. They will build companies, improve products, create jobs for the rest of us. Give it to the poor and it is just gone.
1. I do not "presume" shit. If a person CAN work he SHOULD work. Period. Do not tell me that an able bodied homeless guy can't find work in America when an ilegal alien can find work 5 seconds after getting here without even speaking the fucking language. Do a test, offer a homeless guy a chance to EARN 1,000 dollars by putting him to work roofing houses for you, with a chance of impressing his bosses and possibly further employment, or offer him the 1,000 dollars for free. Any bets on the what the MAJORITY will take?Braddock wrote:
1. I have never advocated the taking care of freeloaders; my argument has been that you can't presume a person's circumstances at face value. A lot of the people that will be empowered by this drive to register 'disenfranchised' citizens will be the same people that have fallen through the cracks of society i.e. people like Bob (who was failed by the military and medical bodies) and Kevin (who was failed as a child by childcare bodies and social services). Are you claiming that would be a bad thing? And btw I did respond to Jack as far as I can remember, if I missed something specific that you want a response to post it again and I'll gladly answer.lowing wrote:
1. I always have recognized and supported those that truely are not capable of doing so. It is just by acknowledging that, your argument for taking care of everyone and sharing the wealth with those that do not contribute falls flat on its ass. You also didn't respond to "Jack", I assume for the same reason
2. you think it is just Bono? Try ALL celebrities, in Hollywood they are all liberals who champion for the common folk, ya know liberals, yet are completely out of touch with real society. They live in a fantasy land and tell the rest of us how we should get along and how we should be spending OUR money. Just like a true liberal.
2. You are bandying about the dreaded "L" word yet again, I would argue that out of touch celebrities don't qualify as liberals, they are misguided Utopianists. Liberalism (at least in the European sense) in this situation would be the advocation of social support structures that provide for the sick, disabled and out of work with checks and balances to make sure the able bodied don't abuse the system...what's so wrong with that?
2.Celebrities are out of touch, just like liberals. It is the celebrities that tote the liberal banner according to them. Liberals want and NEED the govt. to control their lives. A liberal govt. is more than willing to ablige since it puts them in greater control over your money your education your medical your future. All of this because of those that are too fuckin stupid or lazy to do these things on their own. No thanks.
As said before there is nothing wrong with taking care of those that can not, you are not willing to cut off those that will not. This can be done through evaluations of education history, tax history, employment history criminal history.
We are talking about 2 different things. Would you agree that if you were "lucky" enough to be born in AMERICA, that you pretty much are afforded a shit load more opportunity to do something with your life than if you were born in Somalia? If you agree, then which excuse are you going to accept for a poor white trash ditch digger in America that bitches and complains about all he does not have against all he "deserves" or is "entitled" to?jord wrote:
I don't go to school... Not that this is about me.lowing wrote:
Are you telling me there are NO doctors in Somolia? I also notice you are not agreeing to put your little theory to the test. Drop out of school, sit on your ass, and lets see which kinda "luck" you will draw. It will be ok, you can always vote for Obama.jord wrote:
Like I said, of course luck has something to do with your life and how successful you are. It's nurture, not nature.
So you're telling me if a potential Brain Surgeon was born in Somalia with no school for 10 miles and his parents can't afford to pay for it anyway. That he just has to work hard at it? No, there is a certain amount of luck in how your life goes. Whether it be being born into a shithole and not being encouraged by your parents to excel, or being born in an affluent community into a middle class family that has a college fund...
I believe in luck. So after what I've just said are you still going to tell me luck has absolutely no bearing on your success at life?
I'm not saying luck is the be all and end all of life. Obviously hard work is required. But if you don't see how being born into the place that you where has made life just a little easier then you're taking it for granted.
I can't and probably wouldn't vote for Obama if I lived there anyway...
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?Braddock wrote:
Not exactly a whole lot of background info on that story but - presuming she is not the victim of multiple rapes, the forgotten widow of a dead soldier, or suffering from major disability - she doesn't appear to have to much right to complain.lowing wrote:
http://www.wwnytv.net/index.php/2008/08/19/police-pregnant-woman-threatens-to-blow-up-dss/
Hand me the tissue, this poor woman has been so "unlucky" in life.
Just for the record lowing, these are not the kind of people I'm talking about when I'm argue the case for social assistance structures.
I don't have excuses for someone that bitches and complains about what they think they're entitled to. I'm merely saying if said ditch digger had that job and got on with it and worked hard. Then he isn't an underachiever. He's a worker.lowing wrote:
We are talking about 2 different things. Would you agree that if you were "lucky" enough to be born in AMERICA, that you pretty much are afforded a shit load more opportunity to do something with your life than if you were born in Somalia? If you agree, then which excuse are you going to accept for a poor white trash ditch digger in America that bitches and complains about all he does not have against all he "deserves" or is "entitled" to?jord wrote:
I don't go to school... Not that this is about me.lowing wrote:
Are you telling me there are NO doctors in Somolia? I also notice you are not agreeing to put your little theory to the test. Drop out of school, sit on your ass, and lets see which kinda "luck" you will draw. It will be ok, you can always vote for Obama.
I'm not saying luck is the be all and end all of life. Obviously hard work is required. But if you don't see how being born into the place that you where has made life just a little easier then you're taking it for granted.
I can't and probably wouldn't vote for Obama if I lived there anyway...
I thought the term white trash applied to White people on welfare that live in poverty? You know, the true underachievers.
He is not an under-achiever if his goal was to dig ditches. Like I said, I am an under achiever, because. due to lack of motivation I am not a professional pilot. I did not meet my desires or ambitions, so I am an under achiever. I however blame me for this, I was not "unlucky", I was lazy and unwilling.jord wrote:
I don't have excuses for someone that bitches and complains about what they think they're entitled to. I'm merely saying if said ditch digger had that job and got on with it and worked hard. Then he isn't an underachiever. He's a worker.lowing wrote:
We are talking about 2 different things. Would you agree that if you were "lucky" enough to be born in AMERICA, that you pretty much are afforded a shit load more opportunity to do something with your life than if you were born in Somalia? If you agree, then which excuse are you going to accept for a poor white trash ditch digger in America that bitches and complains about all he does not have against all he "deserves" or is "entitled" to?jord wrote:
I don't go to school... Not that this is about me.
I'm not saying luck is the be all and end all of life. Obviously hard work is required. But if you don't see how being born into the place that you where has made life just a little easier then you're taking it for granted.
I can't and probably wouldn't vote for Obama if I lived there anyway...
I thought the term white trash applied to White people on welfare that live in poverty? You know, the true underachievers.
Under achievement is relative. If you meet your goal you have achieved. If you meet your goal and you are content, you are not an under achiever.
I hope you can see the difference.
I see the differance. I was referring to society's opinion on underachievement and not personal goals.lowing wrote:
He is not an under-achiever if his goal was to dig ditches. Like I said, I am an under achiever, because. due to lack of motivation I am not a professional pilot. I did not meet my desires or ambitions, so I am an under achiever. I however blame me for this, I was not "unlucky", I was lazy and unwilling.jord wrote:
I don't have excuses for someone that bitches and complains about what they think they're entitled to. I'm merely saying if said ditch digger had that job and got on with it and worked hard. Then he isn't an underachiever. He's a worker.lowing wrote:
We are talking about 2 different things. Would you agree that if you were "lucky" enough to be born in AMERICA, that you pretty much are afforded a shit load more opportunity to do something with your life than if you were born in Somalia? If you agree, then which excuse are you going to accept for a poor white trash ditch digger in America that bitches and complains about all he does not have against all he "deserves" or is "entitled" to?
I thought the term white trash applied to White people on welfare that live in poverty? You know, the true underachievers.
Under achievement is relative. If you meet your goal you have achieved. If you meet your goal and you are content, you are not an under achiever.
I hope you can see the difference.
In society's view you're not an under achiever because you've got a decent paying full time job(I assume). A house and all that etc. If a guy sets himself a goal to live off the state and to become world class at a video game. Then most people will still regard him as a failure. Even though he reached his goal.
Nope if his goal is to live off ofthe state the nhe is not an under achiever, since he met his goal, he is a piece of shit that deserves t obe cut off from societies tit, and he is regarded as a failure for his attitude toward society and personal responsibility.jord wrote:
I see the differance. I was referring to society's opinion on underachievement and not personal goals.lowing wrote:
He is not an under-achiever if his goal was to dig ditches. Like I said, I am an under achiever, because. due to lack of motivation I am not a professional pilot. I did not meet my desires or ambitions, so I am an under achiever. I however blame me for this, I was not "unlucky", I was lazy and unwilling.jord wrote:
I don't have excuses for someone that bitches and complains about what they think they're entitled to. I'm merely saying if said ditch digger had that job and got on with it and worked hard. Then he isn't an underachiever. He's a worker.
I thought the term white trash applied to White people on welfare that live in poverty? You know, the true underachievers.
Under achievement is relative. If you meet your goal you have achieved. If you meet your goal and you are content, you are not an under achiever.
I hope you can see the difference.
In society's view you're not an under achiever because you've got a decent paying full time job(I assume). A house and all that etc. If a guy sets himself a goal to live off the state and to become world class at a video game. Then most people will still regard him as a failure. Even though he reached his goal.
By the way, any guess on which party such a person would LOVE to see in office?
My knowledge of American politics isn't the best, but democrats I suppose?lowing wrote:
Nope if his goal is to live off ofthe state the nhe is not an under achiever, since he met his goal, he is a piece of shit that deserves t obe cut off from societies tit, and he is regarded as a failure for his attitude toward society and personal responsibility.jord wrote:
I see the differance. I was referring to society's opinion on underachievement and not personal goals.lowing wrote:
He is not an under-achiever if his goal was to dig ditches. Like I said, I am an under achiever, because. due to lack of motivation I am not a professional pilot. I did not meet my desires or ambitions, so I am an under achiever. I however blame me for this, I was not "unlucky", I was lazy and unwilling.
Under achievement is relative. If you meet your goal you have achieved. If you meet your goal and you are content, you are not an under achiever.
I hope you can see the difference.
In society's view you're not an under achiever because you've got a decent paying full time job(I assume). A house and all that etc. If a guy sets himself a goal to live off the state and to become world class at a video game. Then most people will still regard him as a failure. Even though he reached his goal.
By the way, any guess on which party such a person would LOVE to see in office?
bingo!, hence we come full circle for the topic of this thread.jord wrote:
My knowledge of American politics isn't the best, but democrats I suppose?lowing wrote:
Nope if his goal is to live off ofthe state the nhe is not an under achiever, since he met his goal, he is a piece of shit that deserves t obe cut off from societies tit, and he is regarded as a failure for his attitude toward society and personal responsibility.jord wrote:
I see the differance. I was referring to society's opinion on underachievement and not personal goals.
In society's view you're not an under achiever because you've got a decent paying full time job(I assume). A house and all that etc. If a guy sets himself a goal to live off the state and to become world class at a video game. Then most people will still regard him as a failure. Even though he reached his goal.
By the way, any guess on which party such a person would LOVE to see in office?
Because poor people just eat money, throw it away or send it to their account in an offshore tax haven? They don't spend it on goods and services or anything like that?lowing wrote:
As a middle class American who is forced t ogive his money away to either the rich or the poor, I choose the rich. They will take my money and create with it. They will build companies, improve products, create jobs for the rest of us. Give it to the poor and it is just gone.
So essentially your point is that socialism is fine as long as it benefits you. If it benefits someone else that's bad?
I'm not the one advocating not rewarding people for their acheivements, you are. You don't think that the achievements made by people in the public sector are worth rewarding.
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?Braddock wrote:
Not exactly a whole lot of background info on that story but - presuming she is not the victim of multiple rapes, the forgotten widow of a dead soldier, or suffering from major disability - she doesn't appear to have to much right to complain.lowing wrote:
http://www.wwnytv.net/index.php/2008/08/19/police-pregnant-woman-threatens-to-blow-up-dss/
Hand me the tissue, this poor woman has been so "unlucky" in life.
Just for the record lowing, these are not the kind of people I'm talking about when I'm argue the case for social assistance structures.
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.
Where exactly do you think all of that free money the poor absorbs come from?PureFodder wrote:
Because poor people just eat money, throw it away or send it to their account in an offshore tax haven? They don't spend it on goods and services or anything like that?lowing wrote:
As a middle class American who is forced t ogive his money away to either the rich or the poor, I choose the rich. They will take my money and create with it. They will build companies, improve products, create jobs for the rest of us. Give it to the poor and it is just gone.
So essentially your point is that socialism is fine as long as it benefits you. If it benefits someone else that's bad?
I'm not the one advocating not rewarding people for their acheivements, you are. You don't think that the achievements made by people in the public sector are worth rewarding.
Nope, I do not think socialism is fine, I think it is the govt.s job to provide security and the freedom for us to PROVIDE for OURSELVES. It is notr the govt.s job to babysit us and tell us what is best for us finacially medically, or with our education. It is not the govts. job to decide what we are worth in a society. The market decides all of those things.
I know you are not advocating rewarding people for their achievements, you are advocating letting those that do achieve rewards those that do not.
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?Braddock wrote:
Not exactly a whole lot of background info on that story but - presuming she is not the victim of multiple rapes, the forgotten widow of a dead soldier, or suffering from major disability - she doesn't appear to have to much right to complain.
Just for the record lowing, these are not the kind of people I'm talking about when I'm argue the case for social assistance structures.
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.
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-22 10:37:07)
I'm sure you guys have heard the Dems beating the "We can't drill our way out" drum.
I actually chuckled at this: We Can't Tax Our Way Out of the Entitlement Crisis
Pretty clever.
I actually chuckled at this: We Can't Tax Our Way Out of the Entitlement Crisis
Pretty clever.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
an amazing guy ain't he?Kmarion wrote:
I'm sure you guys have heard the Dems beating the "We can't drill our way out" drum.
I actually chuckled at this: We Can't Tax Our Way Out of the Entitlement Crisis
Pretty clever.
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