Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 93

Thread: Bicep size & belief systems page 7

  1. #61
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    That is our fault as voters really. And the fault of those who don't even bother to vote. When we continually elect incumbents that have proven to be ineffective we have no one to blame but ourselves. The United States of America isn't inneffective. As much as it's become a national pastime to condem the government the truth is it's not always so. Sure we have challenges and things that need to be addressed (and obstructing morons voted out of office) but that will always be the case.
    It may be the fault of voters in general, but it's not mine. I didn't vote for either Obama or Romney, I voted for someone I felt could would make changes for the better. Turns out most people are afraid of changing things. They might not get "their fair share", however you may want to define that.

    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    I want tax policy that ensures a prosperous economy and opportunity for everyone. History shows us that when the very wealthy pay a higher tax rate everyone, including them, benefits. The problem is there is a subset of people in this country who cannot get the "lower taxes" broken record out of their head. Until these people come around and their leaders are voted out of office things won't change. We can keep cutting taxes, cutting spending, and take the misguided route of austerity until we hit another depression. I think that is the stupid way and I hope things don't go there.
    You cannot ever ensure, and no one in the history of humanity has been able to ensure, "a prosperous economy". And "opportunity for everyone" is an admirable and Constitutionally approved goal, though we've been trying for more than 200 years now in this country alone. People are born different, have different skills, goals, dreams, work ethics, physical limitations, mental limitations, cultures, families, inheritances, genes... you can't ever ensure "a prosperous economy" that includes all of them.

    The goal should be the ability to earn and give freely. No ridiculous limits on small businesses put in place by larger corporations to reduce competition. No free cell phones for people that just plain don't want to work (no, that's not a myth - I know people that have them). Let people keep more of their pay and I guarantee, they'll spend it. And that puts more people in jobs, which allows them to earn money which they also will spend. That's where you get "a prosperous economy".

    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    I never said you couldn't. I just don't see welfare as a major problem in this country. I want to live in a country where those that fall through the cracks are provided for and given a hand up. I don't think we are spending extraordinary amounts on welfare right now. It's my personal opinion that this is a smoke screen for racism, sexism, classicism, and other general hateful ways of thinking. I see far far too much energy and hate going towards those on welfare than I do towards other areas where far far more of our tax dollars are spent. Or wasted.
    I see welfare as ONE problem that mostly bothers me because it's in my face every day. I've literally had able-bodied people try and convince me to quit my job, fake an injury or something, because they think I'm just working too hard. And they think I'm nice enough that I should have to do that. I should get food stamps and welfare and the free phone and health care. It happens quite frequently when I'm trying to work. I also know more than a few people whose "disability" is that they're a junkie.

    On the other hand, I know others who have disabilities who would dearly love to work, but due to pain issues, medications and insurability, they just can't. I don't mind helping them out at all. But to think there aren't people seriously abusing the system for decades is sticking your head in the sand.

    Yes, there is corporate welfare, and it's generally very wrong in my eyes. I would love to have that taken away as well. I don't have a problem fighting against both types of system abuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    So because to my very core I vehemently disagree with the majority of conservative policy that means I follow the herd? I make up my own mind, thank you very much. As much as I despise labels I happen to agree with what we in the US call "Liberal" policies, morals, and values. I've spent my entire life following politics and public policy to make my mind up. I can respect some conservative ideals even though I don't agree with them. But I think the Republican party has been overrun my the Tea Party whackos and they are now a joke. A terrible joke gone wrong that is bad for this country! That is my opinion. I think this because I pay attention to what is happening. Not because I follow some crowd.
    No, because you're resorting to calling someone a conservative as the highest form of insult you can imagine. Because you assume that anyone who has certain ideas must be following "the crowd", which is hilarious since my particular party is not exactly the popular kid, politically. Because you make assumptions about people's beliefs based on what you believe they're thinking instead of what they're actually saying. Pre-judging. You know - prejudice. And then have the nerve to say their protests against a corrupt system are "a smoke screen for racism, sexism, classicism, and other general hateful ways of thinking".
    Last edited by RitaRose; 05-21-2013 at 06:39 PM.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  2. #62
    0Angel0's Avatar
    0Angel0 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn View Post
    When we had 0 income taxes, we became the strongest economy in the world by the end of the 19th century.
    And then 200 years past and the world became a very different place. This is a huge problem IMO with conservatives (and those who think like them but don't want the label). Trying to compare what works and is right for today with the way things were hundreds of years ago. It's simplistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by kenn View Post
    I used your reports and analyzed them and came up with a different perspective. If you don't like the sources I used then I suggest you present different ones.

    If you consider nothing to be welfare then there is little welfare spending.

    Medicaid and Medicare & Social Security are welfare programs.



    social welfare program -- Encyclopedia Britannica

    So you're either being intellectually dishonest or you truly believe that welfare programs have a definition beyond what is commonly accepted.

    Personally, I don't believe the government's job is to do anything but provide for defense, a legal system and not much more. I provided how the public welfare used to be provided by private parties prior to the government taking it over and forcing people to provide it for it whether they can afford it or not. Regardless of their personal choices. You might like a nanny state that has little regard for rights except the ones that you like to have, I don't.
    You are labeling nearly every single part of government spending as welfare. You view of what a government's role in spending is very extreme and to say I disagree would be an understatement. When I say "welfare" I mean food stamps and checks given to disadvantaged people. Of course there is corporate welfare too in for form of subsidies, tax loopholes, and tax breaks. I happen to think the latter is the real drain on our economy. Do you not see how ridiculous you are being by painting "welfare" with such a large brush and then calling me "intellectually dishonest" for narrowing it down?

    And of course "nanny state" is thrown in, lol. I want an effective government that is beholden and responsive to it's people. I don't want a government hamstrung by simpletons who still think we live in the 19th century.

  3. #63
    0Angel0's Avatar
    0Angel0 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by RitaRose View Post
    It may be the fault of voters in general, but it's not mine. I didn't vote for either Obama or Romney, I voted for someone I felt could would make changes for the better. Turns out most people are afraid of changing things. They might not get "their fair share", however you may want to define that.
    I voted for Obama and would do it again in a heartbeat given the same people he ran against. Romney or McCain?? God no!! I would have preferred Hillary Clinton as I think she wold have been much more effective dealing with Republican obstruction but it is what it is.

    You cannot ever ensure, and no one in the history of humanity has been able to ensure, "a prosperous economy". And "opportunity for everyone" is an admirable and Constitutionally approved goal, though we've been trying for more than 200 years now in this country alone. People are born different, have different skills, goals, dreams, work ethics, physical limitations, mental limitations, cultures, families, inheritances, genes... you can't ever ensure "a prosperous economy" that includes all of them.
    Such a cop out answer! You absolutely can learn from history and enact policy that has the best chance of creating a strong prosperous economy. Creating equal opportunity for everyone is our responsibility as Americans. That is the essence of what this country is about. Equal does not mean identical. It means of equal worth and equal value and that the circumstances of ones birth shouldn't be the sole determinate of the course of their life. I never said everyone was the same. You're are venturing into straw man territory right now.


    The goal should be the ability to earn and give freely. No ridiculous limits on small businesses put in place by larger corporations to reduce competition. No free cell phones for people that just plain don't want to work (no, that's not a myth - I know people that have them). Let people keep more of their pay and I guarantee, they'll spend it. And that puts more people in jobs, which allows them to earn money which they also will spend. That's where you get "a prosperous economy".
    Again, history shows us that what some consider a tax rate that is too high is actually quite effective at fostering a healthy economy. As for letting people keep more of their pay so they will spend it, that has everything to do with a healthy middle class. The middle class is the engine of the economy and it is their spending that drives it. Not the spending of the very wealthy. I don't know anyone seriously arguing for higher taxes on the middle class. So that is a non-issue.

    I see welfare as ONE problem that mostly bothers me because it's in my face every day. I've literally had able-bodied people try and convince me to quit my job, fake an injury or something, because they think I'm just working too hard. And they think I'm nice enough that I should have to do that. I should get food stamps and welfare and the free phone and health care. It happens quite frequently when I'm trying to work. I also know more than a few people whose "disability" is that they're a junkie.
    And your personal anecdotes do not comprise the entirety of people receiving welfare benefits. If there is fraud I'm all in favor of rooting it out. Where ever it exists. I just think it's silly to use a few isolated cases to justify tunnel visioning the welfare issue to the exclusion of where cutting spending would actually make a dent in our deficit.

    On the other hand, I know others who have disabilities who would dearly love to work, but due to pain issues, medications and insurability, they just can't. I don't mind helping them out at all. But to think there aren't people seriously abusing the system for decades is sticking your head in the sand.
    If you want to have an intelligent rational conversation you're going to have to stop making shit up.


    No, because you're resorting to calling someone a conservative as the highest form of insult you can imagine. Because you assume that anyone who has certain ideas must be following "the crowd", which is hilarious since my particular party is not exactly the popular kid, politically. Because you make assumptions about people's beliefs based on what you believe they're thinking instead of what they're actually saying. Pre-judging. You know - prejudice. And then have the nerve to say their protests against a corrupt system are "a smoke screen for racism, sexism, classicism, and other general hateful ways of thinking".
    I called him a conservative because he parrots conservative policy and talking points. He can call himself Libertarian or whatever he wants but if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then I'm going to call it a duck. I did not call him a conservative as an insult. That was just a tongue in cheek reply to the ridiculous aggression in the response he gave. I didn't need to assume anything about his beliefs as we are discussing them in this very thread.

    And to clarify, it the obsession with "the welfare system" to the exclusion of other, IMO, more important areas that is rooted in racism, sexism, and classicism. I don't believe that the majority of people on welfare are lazy crooks. There is no proof of that whatsoever despite relentless attempts to prove otherwise. There may be isolated cases of fraud but the system as a whole has not been shown to be corrupt. There is no factual basis for that accusation.

  4. #64
    kenn's Avatar
    kenn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    And then 200 years past and the world became a very different place. This is a huge problem IMO with conservatives (and those who think like them but don't want the label). Trying to compare what works and is right for today with the way things were hundreds of years ago. It's simplistic.
    A) You're bad at math

    B) Not everyone who shares ideas you perceive to be conservative are conservatives. I'm a libertarian.

    C) Freedom of Speech is centuries old and that seems to still work well. Right to bear arms is centuries old and that seems to work really well in American society today.


    You are labeling nearly every single part of government spending as welfare.
    I'm calling a square a square, if you choose to call a square a circle because it's inconvenient for your reality, then go ahead.

    They are social welfare programs. THey have always been referred to as such.

    You view of what a government's role in spending is very extreme and to say I disagree would be an understatement.
    Yes, it's extreme to think that people have the ability to take care of themselves and that we should progress as a society and relearn what man has always known and that bad things happen (to society) when a vast # of people live off entitlements in society and people believe they have a right to take from others.

    When I say "welfare" I mean food stamps and checks given to disadvantaged people. Of course there is corporate welfare too in for form of subsidies, tax loopholes, and tax breaks. I happen to think the latter is the real drain on our economy. Do you not see how ridiculous you are being by painting "welfare" with such a large brush and then calling me "intellectually dishonest" for narrowing it down?
    If you really think that welfare is food stamps and disability checks then you are willfully ignorant of the social welfare programs that exist on the federal and state level. Ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your ideology is a glaring misconception of reality. Trying to fit your ideology into reality...

    Again, social welfare programs are social welfare programs. Just because you want a narrow definition that is not accepted by the majority of society doesn't make it true.

    And of course "nanny state" is thrown in, lol. I want an effective government that is beholden and responsive to it's people. I don't want a government hamstrung by simpletons who still think we live in the 19th century.
    Few people think we live in the 19th century. Discarding the past when our country grew almost overnight in relation to other societies in history and the level of success achieved is not something that should be ignored because well you don't like how those people think. Again, you are being narrow minded and trying to fit everything into your ideology. If you believe a massive government that consumes ~40% of the GDP of a country is a good thing and will be responsive to the people I'd like to know what you base that on.

    If you want to have an intelligent rational conversation you're going to have to stop making shit up.
    If you chose to willfully ignore the generational disability and other assistance program abusers that exist in this country then you're the one burying your head in the sand and ignoring anything that contradicts your ideology.
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  5. #65
    kenn's Avatar
    kenn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,667
    Government Benefits, Grants, and Financial Aid for Citizens | USA.gov

    This is a list of welfare programs.

    social welfare program, any of a variety of governmental programs designed to protect citizens from the economic risks and insecurities of life. The most common types of programs provide benefits to the elderly or retired, the sick or invalid, dependent survivors, mothers, the unemployed, the work-injured, and families. Methods of financing and administration and the scope of coverage and benefits vary widely among countries.
    social welfare program -- Encyclopedia Britannica
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  6. #66
    kenn's Avatar
    kenn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo View Post
    Government uses force to protect private property claims = natural

    Government uses force to tax and pay for school lunches = tyranny.

    Repeat this enough and dopes will start to parrot it. "The best trained dogs do their tricks when the master's not around" ~ Stalin.
    Quoting a paranoid blood thirsty murdering tyrant while mocking others somehow supports your point?
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  7. #67
    0Angel0's Avatar
    0Angel0 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn View Post
    A) You're bad at math

    B) Not everyone who shares ideas you perceive to be conservative are conservatives. I'm a libertarian.

    C) Freedom of Speech is centuries old and that seems to still work well. Right to bear arms is centuries old and that seems to work really well in American society today.
    You do realize we're in the 21st century right?? You can label yourself what you like. When you stop talking like a conservative I will stop thinking of you as one. Freedom of speech is great, who said otherwise? The second amendment is probably the one place I tend to veer towards the right on. Except for their stupid opposition to reasonable background checks. Those two things are fabulous. What's your point?? Should we all still be riding around in horses and buggies? Should I have my right to vote stripped away? Should we pretend we still have an economy built on the backs of slaves?

    I'm calling a square a square, if you choose to call a square a circle because it's inconvenient for your reality, then go ahead.

    They are social welfare programs. THey have always been referred to as such.
    You are pigeon holing to support your pov. When someone rants and raves about people sucking up their tax dollars it has been my experience that they are usually referring to the poor on food stamps or public assistance. Not their grandmother on Medicare. If you think social programs and safety nets have no role to play in the economy of a developed nation then go live in a third world country. You can get up close and familiar with what you are advocating in favor of.


    Yes, it's extreme to think that people have the ability to take care of themselves and that we should progress as a society and relearn what man has always known and that bad things happen (to society) when a vast # of people live off entitlements in society and people believe they have a right to take from others.
    This is just a bunch of conservative rhetoric. My father is retired from the Marines. He had nine children. He can't afford to send us all to college so I relied on student loans. Should such a program not have existed? Should I have been stuck flipping burgers making a fraction of what I do now? And paying a fraction, if any, of the taxes I pay? Sorry, I should have said "manufacturing burgers".

    I've lived in a third world country and traveled in others. I've seen with my own eyes what countries look like when there are no safety nets or programs in place to level the playing field for the disadvantaged. It is not only immoral it is bad economic policy.

    If you really think that welfare is food stamps and disability checks then you are willfully ignorant of the social welfare programs that exist on the federal and state level. Ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your ideology is a glaring misconception of reality. Trying to fit your ideology into reality...
    I think you putting medicare and social security in the same category as food stamps and public assistance is you trying to lump everything together to fit your anti government ideology. See? I can do that too.

    Few people think we live in the 19th century. Discarding the past when our country grew almost overnight in relation to other societies in history and the level of success achieved is not something that should be ignored because well you don't like how those people think. Again, you are being narrow minded and trying to fit everything into your ideology. If you believe a massive government that consumes ~40% of the GDP of a country is a good thing and will be responsive to the people I'd like to know what you base that on.
    I don't care how big or small a government is. I think obsessing over "big government" is stupid. What about effective government? Efficient government? Stop focusing on percentages and start demanding results from those you elect. How about that?

    If you chose to willfully ignore the generational disability and other assistance program abusers that exist in this country then you're the one burying your head in the sand and ignoring anything that contradicts your ideology.
    You're making shit up too. I never said fraud doesn't occur. I said it's not as big of an issue and it doesn't cost us as much as some people think. It certainly doesn't warrant the obsession and blinders to all else that some have with it. If your position is sound you shouldn't have to resort to imaginary arguments, should you?

  8. #68
    kenn's Avatar
    kenn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,667
    You are intellectually dishonest
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  9. #69
    JWBooth's Avatar
    JWBooth is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    That is our fault as voters really. And the fault of those who don't even bother to vote. When we continually elect incumbents that have proven to be ineffective we have no one to blame but ourselves. The United States of America isn't inneffective. As much as it's become a national pastime to condem the government the truth is it's not always so. Sure we have challenges and things that need to be addressed (and obstructing morons voted out of office) but that will always be the case.
    Um, how exactly is it our fault? If I don't vote, my conscience is clear. It is you people that participate in the system electoral system that give it legitimacy. If people would just sit out elections, ignore government whenever they can, and treat politicians with the utter contempt they deserve, we might have half a shot of being free.

  10. #70
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn View Post
    You are intellectually dishonest
    And making shit up.

    Somehow I still supposedly voted for the status quo, even though I voted third party. I'm not even sure I'm getting actual replies to my posts or or just regurgitated tirades from the last binge at the university pub.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •