|
|
The mentally disabled state of Texas (Loud and clear)
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-09 15:43:38
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Lol, I love how the deliberate Republican obstruction is conveniently dropped from the discussion.
What was the goal of half our government for Obamas 1st term? That's right, make the man a one term president at all costs.
I have my beef with Obama and his administration effectively being no different than a Republican one outside the social issues but try and at least be honest for a change.
How did they obstruct? Obama is a terrible leader and a terrible President. If he couldn't get 100% of what he wanted, then he wanted nothing. He has no clue how to work with others and actually lead. No President gets 100% of what they want.
[+]
 Bismarck.Bloodrose
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2013-07-09 15:44:03
I actually suffered a work place injury that left permanent damage to my lower back and left leg. I'm by no means a health nut. I'm just not a full blown retard. It's this thing called money management that leads to people eating healthier foods at a much lower cost. You can store and freeze leftovers, use them as parts of other meals, and get creative with it. I'm really sorry that thinking of ways to save money, while giving your kids the best meal possible, which weans you from government assistance dependency is such a "liberal" thing to do. On the contrary, it's actually quite conservative. You spend less, you eat better, tastier food, have more energy to be as HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE as you'd like to be, and you're off the system faster. MY God. That is SO *** Liberal.
It really isn't hard to do shopping around or check out online sales/use coupons, etc. if you're in complete and dire need of savings. Hell, even word of mouth or flyers at your local church or municipal building will have programs listed for people in need. The problem, stems from people like you, who believe in self-entitlement, and that they should not change they way they live even if on assistance.
I've had to take a whole year off when I was 18 because of my workplace injury, and surprise, surprise, I managed a way to eat good food, and get healthier and back to work quicker than my doctor anticipated. All because I didn't get bogged down with a bitchfest about how life sucks or was unfair.
[+]
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2013-07-09 15:44:04
if you give people things, they will absolutely keep taking until they are told no.
It's not like the Republicans feed military contractors billions or stoke the fires of the armed services with cash they become dependent on.
[+]
By Drjones 2013-07-09 15:44:09
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »The reasoning is simple. Once people are receiving money from the government then they are less likely to vote for someone that promises to take it away? Kinda logical isn't it? That...sounds reasonable?
Isn't it the same on the other side though, just that it's tax cuts instead of social safety nets?
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-09 15:45:23
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »The reasoning is simple. Once people are receiving money from the government then they are less likely to vote for someone that promises to take it away? Kinda logical isn't it?
You do realize the majority of people who voted for Romney were or are about to receive social security. Baby boomers, ftw.
You do know social security is welfare, right?
if you give people things, they will absolutely keep taking until they are told no.
Yes. This also applies to businesses and politicians. A failing in humanity.
I don't recall Social Security being optional.
 Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2013-07-09 15:45:36
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »if you give people things, they will absolutely keep taking until they are told no.
It's not like the Republicans feed military contractors billions or stoke the fires of the armed services with cash they become dependent on or anything.
Kara got what I was saying, sorry for not being so blatantly on one side of the fence.
[+]
By Drjones 2013-07-09 15:45:38
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Lol, I love how the deliberate Republican obstruction is conveniently dropped from the discussion.
What was the goal of half our government for Obamas 1st term? That's right, make the man a one term president at all costs.
I have my beef with Obama and his administration effectively being no different than a Republican one outside the social issues but try and at least be honest for a change.
How did they obstruct?
[+]
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-07-09 15:46:13
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »The reasoning is simple. Once people are receiving money from the government then they are less likely to vote for someone that promises to take it away? Kinda logical isn't it?
You do realize the majority of people who voted for Romney were or are about to receive social security. Baby boomers, ftw.
You do know social security is welfare, right?
if you give people things, they will absolutely keep taking until they are told no.
Yes. This also applies to businesses and politicians. A failing in humanity.
I don't recall Social Security being optional.
Depends on the state. It's also not funded, but I guess we can't take something away just because they put money in 20 years ago? That would be...unfair.
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-09 15:48:48
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »I actually suffered a work place injury that left permanent damage to my lower back and left leg. I'm by no means a health nut. I'm just not a full blown retard. It's this thing called money management that leads to people eating healthier foods at a much lower cost. You can store and freeze leftovers, use them as parts of other meals, and get creative with it. I'm really sorry that thinking of ways to save money, while giving your kids the best meal possible, which weans you from government assistance dependency is such a "liberal" thing to do. On the contrary, it's actually quite conservative. You spend less, you eat better, tastier food, have more energy to be as HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE as you'd like to be, and you're off the system faster. MY God. That is SO *** Liberal.
It really isn't hard to do shopping around or check out online sales/use coupons, etc. if you're in complete and dire need of savings. Hell, even word of mouth or flyers at your local church or municipal building will have programs listed for people in need. The problem, stems from people like you, who believe in self-entitlement, and that they should not change they way they live even if on assistance.
I've had to take a whole year off when I was 18 because of my workplace injury, and surprise, surprise, I managed a way to eat good food, and get healthier and back to work quicker than my doctor anticipated. All because I didn't get bogged down with a bitchfest about how life sucks or was unfair.
No. Conservatives want the welfare programs to be there for people that need them, a safety net to catch people going through hard times until they can get back on their feet. The liberal wants to catch people in the safety net and keep them their forever. And attract more and more people in the spider web.
[+]
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-09 15:48:52
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »The reasoning is simple. Once people are receiving money from the government then they are less likely to vote for someone that promises to take it away? Kinda logical isn't it?
You do realize the majority of people who voted for Romney were or are about to receive social security. Baby boomers, ftw.
You do know social security is welfare, right?Comes from the same place. Don't think people understand that. In the future when it runs out, you can put blame on having all these people on assistance, the good, and more so, the bad.
[+]
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-09 15:50:08
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »The reasoning is simple. Once people are receiving money from the government then they are less likely to vote for someone that promises to take it away? Kinda logical isn't it?
You do realize the majority of people who voted for Romney were or are about to receive social security. Baby boomers, ftw.
You do know social security is welfare, right?
if you give people things, they will absolutely keep taking until they are told no.
Yes. This also applies to businesses and politicians. A failing in humanity.
I don't recall Social Security being optional.
Depends on the state. It's also not funded, but I guess we can't take something away just because they put money in 20 years ago? That would be...unfair.
You can't opt out of social security.
Edit: remember how they flayed Bush for wanting to allow people to opt out and pay into their own private retirement accounts?
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2013-07-09 15:53:03
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »I actually suffered a work place injury that left permanent damage to my lower back and left leg. I'm by no means a health nut. I'm just not a full blown retard. It's this thing called money management that leads to people eating healthier foods at a much lower cost. You can store and freeze leftovers, use them as parts of other meals, and get creative with it. I'm really sorry that thinking of ways to save money, while giving your kids the best meal possible, which weans you from government assistance dependency is such a "liberal" thing to do. On the contrary, it's actually quite conservative. You spend less, you eat better, tastier food, have more energy to be as HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE as you'd like to be, and you're off the system faster. MY God. That is SO *** Liberal.
It really isn't hard to do shopping around or check out online sales/use coupons, etc. if you're in complete and dire need of savings. Hell, even word of mouth or flyers at your local church or municipal building will have programs listed for people in need. The problem, stems from people like you, who believe in self-entitlement, and that they should not change they way they live even if on assistance.
I've had to take a whole year off when I was 18 because of my workplace injury, and surprise, surprise, I managed a way to eat good food, and get healthier and back to work quicker than my doctor anticipated. All because I didn't get bogged down with a bitchfest about how life sucks or was unfair.
No. Conservatives want the welfare programs to be there for people that need them, a safety net to catch people going through hard times until they can get back on their feet. The liberal wants to catch people in the safety net and keep them their forever. And attract more and more people in the spider web.
The reverse is actually true. Democrats in the US, have proven time and again, that creating a healthy, happy workforce, that can be weaned off of welfare programs, will have more money to spend, and to spend it and earn it on American soil. On the other hand, conservative nut jobs (read: Highly ignorant batshit crazy minority representing the whole) have tried to pass legislature which would leave immediate care patients without care, without medical funding, erasing educational opportunity, taking work and business over seas, and so forth. Of course, this is a fact glossed over every time by die hard conservatives.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-09 15:54:04
Funny how this come back to my opinionated way of thinking.. because in the future, oh wait, you won't have one the way things keep going.
Welfare leechers might make up a small portion of the populace, but they're still sucking it dry like everyone else is.
At least when it does run out, we can all think "well it ran out but think of all the good it did" instead of "damn people took everything from everyone!".
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-09 15:55:10
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »I actually suffered a work place injury that left permanent damage to my lower back and left leg. I'm by no means a health nut. I'm just not a full blown retard. It's this thing called money management that leads to people eating healthier foods at a much lower cost. You can store and freeze leftovers, use them as parts of other meals, and get creative with it. I'm really sorry that thinking of ways to save money, while giving your kids the best meal possible, which weans you from government assistance dependency is such a "liberal" thing to do. On the contrary, it's actually quite conservative. You spend less, you eat better, tastier food, have more energy to be as HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE as you'd like to be, and you're off the system faster. MY God. That is SO *** Liberal.
It really isn't hard to do shopping around or check out online sales/use coupons, etc. if you're in complete and dire need of savings. Hell, even word of mouth or flyers at your local church or municipal building will have programs listed for people in need. The problem, stems from people like you, who believe in self-entitlement, and that they should not change they way they live even if on assistance.
I've had to take a whole year off when I was 18 because of my workplace injury, and surprise, surprise, I managed a way to eat good food, and get healthier and back to work quicker than my doctor anticipated. All because I didn't get bogged down with a bitchfest about how life sucks or was unfair.
No. Conservatives want the welfare programs to be there for people that need them, a safety net to catch people going through hard times until they can get back on their feet. The liberal wants to catch people in the safety net and keep them their forever. And attract more and more people in the spider web.
The reverse is actually true. Democrats in the US, have proven time and again, that creating a healthy, happy workforce, that can be weaned off of welfare programs, will have more money to spend, and to spend it and earn it on American soil. On the other hand, conservative nut jobs (read: Highly ignorant batshit crazy minority representing the whole) have tried to pass legislature which would leave immediate care patients without care, without medical funding, erasing educational opportunity, taking work and business over seas, and so forth. Of course, this is a fact glossed over every time by die hard conservatives.
You sound like a lunatic now. Yeah uhh, false. False. False. And, false. But thanks for the rant.
By Drjones 2013-07-09 15:58:49
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Funny how this come back to my opinionated way of thinking.. because in the future, oh wait, you won't have one the way things keep going.
Welfare leechers might make up a small portion of the populace, but they're still sucking it dry like everyone else is.
At least when it does run out, we can all think "well it ran out but think of all the good it did" instead of "damn people took everything from everyone!". I'm reasonably certain the costs incurred by the military are a much bigger drain on our national coffers than the cost of maintaining the foodstamp program. Like, several orders of magnitude.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-09 16:02:12
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Funny how this come back to my opinionated way of thinking.. because in the future, oh wait, you won't have one the way things keep going.
Welfare leechers might make up a small portion of the populace, but they're still sucking it dry like everyone else is.
At least when it does run out, we can all think "well it ran out but think of all the good it did" instead of "damn people took everything from everyone!". I'm reasonably certain the costs incurred by the military are a much bigger drain on our national coffers than the cost of maintaining the foodstamp program. Like, several orders of magnitude. You're right, absolutely right. What I was saying was that weeding out the bad people would start in a turn around for the program, or instilling stricter laws/policies.
You could say that I don't dwell on the bad people because they are bad, but I do thinking that this is part of the reason why my future is so bleak. And everyone elses, too.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-07-09 16:04:06
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »The reasoning is simple. Once people are receiving money from the government then they are less likely to vote for someone that promises to take it away? Kinda logical isn't it?
You do realize the majority of people who voted for Romney were or are about to receive social security. Baby boomers, ftw.
You do know social security is welfare, right?
if you give people things, they will absolutely keep taking until they are told no.
Yes. This also applies to businesses and politicians. A failing in humanity.
I don't recall Social Security being optional.
Depends on the state. It's also not funded, but I guess we can't take something away just because they put money in 20 years ago? That would be...unfair.
You can't opt out of social security.
Edit: remember how they flayed Bush for wanting to allow people to opt out and pay into their own private retirement accounts? I'm sorry I remembered it being a states but it is only certain jobs
Quote: There are a number of groups of workers who are exempted from having to pay Social Security taxes:
Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.
It's also been suggested that since the supreme court ruled it was a social welfare program that many could probably take this fight to different levels of the court and get the law interpreted through case law.
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-07-09 16:23:05
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »No, but you found someone that says Obama has dragged it out for five years. He focused on the job-killing Obamacare instead of the recession. If it was indeed the greatest recession, by virtue of it being the greatest wouldn't you think that maybe it should have been his primary focus? Just called the greatest now since he failed. I usually just enjoy your posts and plus them, cause they usually get under skin of others, but this one, I agree with. Why was he not spending more time on Fixing the Economy instead of pushing Obamacare?????
Anyways back to lurking. I don't get it. A common criticism on these boards is that it's a 24/7 liberal "circle-jerk", and it's not really disputed that many of us here lean towards that ideology. So wouldn't the conservatives here want someone who could articulate and support (with actual *** citations) that viewpoint instead of someone whose one-trick show is partisan antagonism? (Then there's Tenshibaby and his amazing 'Biasplanic' map, but he really belongs in his own category.)
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Server: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2013-07-09 16:34:54
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »No, but you found someone that says Obama has dragged it out for five years. He focused on the job-killing Obamacare instead of the recession. If it was indeed the greatest recession, by virtue of it being the greatest wouldn't you think that maybe it should have been his primary focus? Just called the greatest now since he failed. I usually just enjoy your posts and plus them, cause they usually get under skin of others, but this one, I agree with. Why was he not spending more time on Fixing the Economy instead of pushing Obamacare?????
Anyways back to lurking. I don't get it. A common criticism on these boards is that it's a 24/7 liberal "circle-jerk", and it's not really disputed that many of us here lean towards that ideology. So wouldn't the conservatives here want someone who could articulate and support (with actual *** citations) that viewpoint instead of someone whose one-trick show is partisan antagonism? (Then there's Tenshibaby and his amazing 'Biasplanic' map, but he really belongs in his own category.) It would be nice, sadly, I can't articulate worth a dam my thoughts. Even worse being typed. Comes out like diarrhea. That being said, Aman does seem to wind you up really well with thoughts I lean towards, so I can settle for that. Its a losing battle but least he's out there giving it a shot and I commend him for not stopping.
In regards to that other person mentioned, I won't read their posts much so I can't really give him/her/it a [+] (not like mine matter anyways). Tho I do [+] You and a few others that don't share a "Conservative" view because the posts are either good, funny, or respectable. Hell, yours usually all 3. Just some others tend to come off so set in their ways, much like Aman, but on the opposite end. So its kinda like watching a losing food fight of people hurling stuff at each other, and silly me cheering on the under dog knowing he will lose. ^^
[+]
By Blazed1979 2013-07-09 16:36:43
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »No, but you found someone that says Obama has dragged it out for five years. He focused on the job-killing Obamacare instead of the recession. If it was indeed the greatest recession, by virtue of it being the greatest wouldn't you think that maybe it should have been his primary focus? Just called the greatest now since he failed. I usually just enjoy your posts and plus them, cause they usually get under skin of others, but this one, I agree with. Why was he not spending more time on Fixing the Economy instead of pushing Obamacare?????
Anyways back to lurking. I don't get it. A common criticism on these boards is that it's a 24/7 liberal "circle-jerk", and it's not really disputed that many of us here lean towards that ideology. So wouldn't the conservatives here want someone who could articulate and support (with actual *** citations) that viewpoint instead of someone whose one-trick show is partisan antagonism? (Then there's Tenshibaby and his amazing 'Biasplanic' map, but he really belongs in his own category.)
I'll play conservative from now on.
I'll start by asking wtf does Bisplanic mean.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-09 16:37:51
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Funny how this come back to my opinionated way of thinking.. because in the future, oh wait, you won't have one the way things keep going.
Welfare leechers might make up a small portion of the populace, but they're still sucking it dry like everyone else is.
At least when it does run out, we can all think "well it ran out but think of all the good it did" instead of "damn people took everything from everyone!". I'm reasonably certain the costs incurred by the military are a much bigger drain on our national coffers than the cost of maintaining the foodstamp program. Like, several orders of magnitude.
2013 total budget was 6.1 trillion, broken down as follows:
1.1 trillion in pensions
1.5 trillion in government healthcare
.8 in education
.9 in defense
.3 in welfare
1.5 in all other spending
that means all forms of federal aide combined are roughly 5% of the budget, up to 12% if you count disaster aide like FEMA. for a little perspective, NASA was able to put men in space and land the most advanced probe in existence on Mars for about .03 trillion dollars.
and the other popular target of conservatives being public broadcasting which was roughl 400 million, or .0004 trillion.
i think there are quite a few places money is running out of the bag besides food stamps.
By Blazed1979 2013-07-09 16:41:06
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Funny how this come back to my opinionated way of thinking.. because in the future, oh wait, you won't have one the way things keep going.
Welfare leechers might make up a small portion of the populace, but they're still sucking it dry like everyone else is.
At least when it does run out, we can all think "well it ran out but think of all the good it did" instead of "damn people took everything from everyone!". I'm reasonably certain the costs incurred by the military are a much bigger drain on our national coffers than the cost of maintaining the foodstamp program. Like, several orders of magnitude.
2013 total budget was 6.1 trillion, broken down as follows:
1.1 trillion in pensions
1.5 trillion in government healthcare
.8 in education
.9 in defense
.3 in welfare
1.5 in all other spending
that means all forms of federal aide combined are roughly 5% of the budget, up to 12% if you count disaster aide like FEMA. for a little perspective, NASA was able to put men in space and land the most advanced probe in existence on Mars for about .03 trillion dollars.
and the other popular target of conservatives being public broadcasting which was roughl 400 million, or .0004 trillion.
i think there are quite a few places money is running out of the bag besides food stamps.
I recall reading that not all Military spending falls under "defense".
Searching for source, but fairly certain US's total military spending is more than 900 billion.
2007-2013 Military budgets
Defense 652.6 729.6 794.0 847.1 878.4 849.6
Military defense 551.3 616.1 661.0 693.5 705.6 677.9
Civil defense 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Veterans 72.8 84.7 95.4 108.4 127.2 124.6
Foreign military aid 8.0 9.5 6.2 11.4 12.0 11.5
Foreign economic aid 20.5 19.4 31.3 33.8 33.6 35.7
R and D Defence 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Defence n.e.c. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Says 0 spending on R&D Defence lol... seems legit.
 Cerberus.Eugene
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2013-07-09 16:43:23
Why are you still crying about the economy? By any measure we're recovering better than most of the world. Even with the stupidity that couldn't get us a deal through the sequester.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-09 16:43:50
that's entirely possible, those are the categories from the official .gov
Siren.Flavin
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4155
By Siren.Flavin 2013-07-09 16:44:14
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Funny how this come back to my opinionated way of thinking.. because in the future, oh wait, you won't have one the way things keep going. Welfare leechers might make up a small portion of the populace, but they're still sucking it dry like everyone else is. At least when it does run out, we can all think "well it ran out but think of all the good it did" instead of "damn people took everything from everyone!". I'm reasonably certain the costs incurred by the military are a much bigger drain on our national coffers than the cost of maintaining the foodstamp program. Like, several orders of magnitude. You're right, absolutely right. What I was saying was that weeding out the bad people would start in a turn around for the program, or instilling stricter laws/policies. You could say that I don't dwell on the bad people because they are bad, but I do thinking that this is part of the reason why my future is so bleak. And everyone elses, too. Do you have any idea what savings there would be if they weeded out all the "bad" ones on welfare or it's economic and social impact?
If you really want to focus on something look at medicare which completely trumps welfare where there are billions in funds that are misappropriated funds... even then that's still a fraction of what the gov't spends...
Your future is bleak? As well as everyone elses?
Cerberus.Eugene
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6999
By Cerberus.Eugene 2013-07-09 16:46:31
There's no empirical evidence that I've seen that shows systemic or significant welfare fraud or dysfunction. I've looked and I've asked people who are ardently opposed to it to show me some and I've yet to see it.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-09 16:47:21
What I was saying is start small, and work the way up.
Can't expect to fix everything at once.
Start small, then get to the bigger problems.
You might not think that it will make a difference, but in the long run it will.
I'm done responding to you by the way.
Edit: Oh and bleak future? Lesse, I'm afraid of having children knowing that I won't be able to support them, Social Security will be gone by the time I want to retire, and resources are bring run down at extreme rates, some people thinking they'll run out within my lifetime.
If that doesn't get you depressed to live on, Iunno what will.
[+]
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-09 16:49:04
There's no empirical evidence that I've seen that shows systemic welfare fraud or dysfunction. I've looked and I've asked people who are ardently opposed to it to show me some and I've yet to see it.
i just want to point out that absence of evidence is only proof that nobody is recording it , not that the evidence does or doesn't exist.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-07-09 16:51:10
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »No, but you found someone that says Obama has dragged it out for five years. He focused on the job-killing Obamacare instead of the recession. If it was indeed the greatest recession, by virtue of it being the greatest wouldn't you think that maybe it should have been his primary focus? Just called the greatest now since he failed. I usually just enjoy your posts and plus them, cause they usually get under skin of others, but this one, I agree with. Why was he not spending more time on Fixing the Economy instead of pushing Obamacare?????
Anyways back to lurking. I don't get it. A common criticism on these boards is that it's a 24/7 liberal "circle-jerk", and it's not really disputed that many of us here lean towards that ideology. So wouldn't the conservatives here want someone who could articulate and support (with actual *** citations) that viewpoint instead of someone whose one-trick show is partisan antagonism? (Then there's Tenshibaby and his amazing 'Biasplanic' map, but he really belongs in his own category.) It would be nice, sadly, I can't articulate worth a dam my thoughts. Even worse being typed. Comes out like diarrhea. That being said, Aman does seem to wind you up really well with thoughts I lean towards, so I can settle for that. Its a losing battle but least he's out there giving it a shot and I commend him for not stopping.
In regards to that other person mentioned, I won't read their posts much so I can't really give him/her/it a [+] (not like mine matter anyways). Tho I do [+] You and a few others that don't share a "Conservative" view because the posts are either good, funny, or respectable. Hell, yours usually all 3. Just some others tend to come off so set in their ways, much like Aman, but on the opposite end. So its kinda like watching a losing food fight of people hurling stuff at each other, and silly me cheering on the under dog knowing he will lose. ^^ I do love a good ***fest, I'll give you that!
[+]
Siren.Flavin
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4155
By Siren.Flavin 2013-07-09 16:52:07
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »What I was saying is start small, and work the way up. Can't expect to fix everything at once. Start small, then get to the bigger problems. You might not think that it will make a difference, but in the long run it will. I'm done responding to you by the way. Start small and work their way up? lol... not only will you not fix everything at once, you won't ever fix these completely... Most times when they make these changes they just end up hurting the people that actually benefit from it and the scammers come up with some other way... in any case I just really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about... it seems like you're just acknowledging a problem, venting your anger about it and telling someone else to go fix it lol... but giving them the advice that if they start with a small problem they'll eventually work themselves up to some real issues!
Edit: oh and by the way... how do you know it will make a difference? Is that using the line of thought that if you work on something it will automatically get better? Or do you actually know of some feasible plan out there with the guaranteed positive outcome?
Jury Acquits Texas Man For Murder Of Escort Who Refused Sex
A Texas jury acquitted a man for the murder of a woman he hired as an escort, after his lawyers claimed he was authorized to use deadly force because she refused sex.
Ezekiel Gilbert shot Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve, after she denied his requests for sex and wouldn’t return the $150 he had paid her, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Under Texas law, an individual is authorized to use deadly force to “retrieve stolen property at night,” and Gilbert’s lawyers cited that provision as justification for Gilbert’s action, reasoning that Frago had stolen $150 from him by taking his money without delivering sex. In a police interview played for jurors, Gilbert “never mentioned anything about theft,” a detective told the San Antonio Express-News. Frago, who was 21, was critically injured and died several months later.
While the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida has generated notoriety for NRA-backed Stand Your Ground laws, which authorize the unfettered use of deadly force without a duty to retreat in defense of one’s person or home, Texas’ exceedingly broad law goes well beyond this, to allow deadly force in protection of any piece of “tangible” or “movable” property.
The Texas provision authorizes deadly force not only to “retrieve stolen property at night” but also during “criminal mischief in the nighttime” and even to prevent someone who is fleeing immediately after a theft during the night or a burglary or robbery, so long as the individual “reasonably” thinks the property cannot be protected by other means.
This shockingly broad statute authorizes individuals to take not just law enforcement, but punishment, into their own hands and impose death for alleged offenses that would never warrant the death penalty even if the person were convicted in court. But even in light of the expansive vigilante justice made legal by the statute, it is difficult to see how Gilbert’s behavior was justified, given that escorts are not entitled to deliver sex under the law, and delivering sex for money is an illegal transaction.
|
|
