Kerry a liar? [Archive]

SDW2001

03-15-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I don't quite get the point of why Republicans are exploiting this. 1) It's undoubtedly true that most foreign leaders welcome a Kerry Presidency because he has made explicit overtures to mend relations between the US and the world. Kerry has said he wants to work with our country's allies and has emphasized the value of allies generally speaking. Now that's clearly in marked contrast from our current President and his administration, who generally de-emphasized the value of allies namely through his "either with us or against us," go-it alone (without the support any international organization of states like UN or NATO) foreign policy. 2) Republicans have argued against "needing the approval of another state" to conduct foreign policy and otherwise, so for the sake consistency, shouldn't they attack Kerry's statement as a "clear sign that he will weaken our national security by requiring our country to sign a permission slip to conduct foreign policy." Hmm- yes- foreign leaders support Kerry, but I think that should be a bad thing based on what Republicans have argued for the past 3 or 4 years.

Wow. Why are they exploiting it? Probably the same reason you're running around screaming "where are the WOMD?" Give me a break. The Republicans are exploiting this because:

1) They can make Kerry look like the fool that he for making the statement.

2) The wish to dispel, rightfully, the notion that "we have no allies left". This
is nothing but a myth. We have not alienated the entire world as you'd like
to claim we have. It simply isn't true. What we did have is a pacisfist,
corrupt third rate power (which was directly tied to Saddam)
actively campaigning against our agenda. Ally? No. Allies don't do that.

Jubelum

03-15-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by a_greer
a comedore 64.

I was thinking a Trash80...
http://williambader.com/museum/at/trs80.jpg

With his friend Tom Daschle, voice-over by HAL
http://www.testbed.co.uk/gifs&jpegs/eye.gif
"Hello, electorate... This is Tom..."

a_greer

03-15-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
I was thinking a Trash80...
http://williambader.com/museum/at/trs80.jpg

With his friend Tom Daschle, voice-over by HAL
http://www.testbed.co.uk/gifs&jpegs/eye.gif
"Hello, electorate... This is Tom..." :lol:that is great:lol:

a_greer

03-15-2004, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001

...
2) The wish to dispel, rightfully, the notion that "we have no allies left". This
is nothing but a myth. We have not alienated the entire world as you'd like
to claim we have. It simply isn't true. What we did have is a pacisfist,
untill the whole spain thing this weekend the dems biched pissed and moaned about being unilateral, and now all of the sudden we lost our greatest Ally? we had these? the libs paint themselves into corners every week now. all bush needs to do is let kerry talk all the time, and occasinaly chime in and point out his lies and/or double talk

Moogs

03-15-2004, 08:36 PM

Na-dar, NAA-dar, NAA-DAR!

:D

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 08:40 PM

Democrats think they are Democrats based on a definition that they think it stands for. By being a democrat one thinks that they represent change, and forward thinking policy. They think that a Democrat has a responsibility for the common man, and they want to fight the evil capitalist who wants nothing but to hoard money at the expense of others. Big government control against less government and business.

The Republicans stand for the equal oppertunity to all people, not equal outcome. No child left behind, and the like are all issues supported by Republicans. People are so confused now-a-days about who and what they are and what they stand for.

John Kerry is running his campaign on a class warfare strategy, pitting the common person against the evil capitalist and "top 10%" Republican. By appealing to the lower class and middle class, Kerry assumes he will garner a large vote-which is a good strategy, but not at all true to his party. People should not be fooled by the fact that Kerry is a high class citizen and he is going out and campaigning for the little guy, while not even accurately representing the little guy at all. Not to say that George Bush does, but in terms of policy to help the lower class, both are very similar.

Also, lets look at Kerry's do-nothing career as a junior senator. He has 3 pieces of minor legislation to his name, a complete and total joke. He is not the forward thinking, radical changing guy that Democrats think or want to believe he is. He's just another guy with money, preaching to a class he is not apart of and trying to create a them vs us mentality between classes.

I wont buy it, and I wont vote for John Kerry.

SDW2001

03-15-2004, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Worst. Analysis. Ever.

This from a former Deaniac. Yeeeah!

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Worst. Analysis. Ever. How is this so? Is John Kerry not trying to benefit from the uneducated and minor anger wave in some of the classes and bolster himself into a position of power based on emotion and backwards thinking?

"We'll take some from here, move it over here, take that over there and build this up over here-ahhhh it all looks even now."---That is not the America I want to live in.

a_greer

03-15-2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
...
John Kerry is running his campaign on a class warfare strategy, pitting the common person against the evil capitalist and "top 10%" Republican. By appealing to the lower class and middle class, Kerry assumes he will garner a large vote-which is a good strategy, but not at all true to his party. People should not be fooled by the fact that Kerry is a high class citizen and he is going out and campaigning for the little guy, while not even accurately representing the little guy at all. Not to say that George Bush does, but in terms of policy to help the lower class, both are very similar.... well if you listen to John kerry you would never know how he affords his toys, his sugar-mamma, Theresa, the ketchup babe(I use the term loosely), and a BILLIONAIR so the choir that he preaches to should hate him....or are they even true to themselves anymore?

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 08:49 PM

Exactly, and the uneducated people in America do not know any better. They think, "this guy will help me get more money-I dont know how but he says he will." Pfft!

I'm sick of the media calling Bush ads, "Mud Slinging." His ads talk about things he should be proud of, like keeping America safe and keeping the economy relatively stable considering the issues that have had to have been dealt with. Never before has a country, in the history of the world had so much power and abused it less. I am glad Bush is trumpeting his successes in defense.

I also love how the Democrats claim that the job market and the economy overall is a wasteland, especially considering the employment rate is nearly at full employment.

SDW2001

03-15-2004, 08:51 PM

Kerry:

...In dangerous parts of Iraq, our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire and the Bush Administration waited through month after month of ambushes to act.

And tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them. Many of their families on the homefront - mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and children - were forced to raise the money to buy it for them. Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq - and the Department of Defense should be sending the body armor. Today, I call on President Bush to support a law now in Congress to reimburse each and every family who had to buy the body armor this Administration failed to provide.

This is the man you're supporting. This guy voted against nearly everything he's talking about above...including the $87B war funding request for....wait for it.... materials for the troops. He voted against 17 major weapons systems. He voted to cut intelligence.

What total bullshit.

a_greer

03-15-2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Exactly, and the uneducated people in America do not know any better. They think, "this guy will help me get more money-I dont know how but he says he will."

Pfft! these are the same people that buy crap from guys on tv who says that this magic pill will(fill in the blank) or this workbook will make you an instant million

Aquatic

03-15-2004, 08:55 PM

Kinda like when Dean "suggested that America should be planning for a time when it is not the world's greatest superpower: 'We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We won't always have the strongest military.' "

Here, let me close that door so you can open it into your face again...

All these candidates are going to say stuuuuupid things... Bushie ain't too far, just wait. He may say stupud things like the "imports" comment, but Kerry does not back up what he says with his meanie face. Like "who are the 'crooks' and what have they done" and "what international leaders" ?

C'mon Johnnie. Play ball when you flap your elitist northeastern gums.

The title of this thread is a no-brainer. All politicians lie. All of them. It is called "electibility." Of what I have seen, the only one that is honest about who and what he is- is "NADAR.

OK a few things.

1. China will be bigger than us someday. Economy, military, everything. They're just bigger. Period. They already have a larger standing Army and where do you think most of our trade deficit goes?

2. elitist northern gums huh? Why the HELL are you quoting something Kerry said when he did not know the MIC was on? It was an offhand comment just like when Bush called a reporter a "Major league asshole." I didn't see him backing that one up.

3. Do you understand the concept of "electibility"? It has nothing to do with who is honest about who he is yada yada. Bush is an extremely dishonest President. Sure Clinton was too. But so is Bush. What about the cocaine he did, going AWOL, the Iraq pre-war intel, the Cheney energy meetings, lies about anything scientific at all from global warming to energy use to stem cells, what about virtually every number he quoted in debates, like all his blather about how his tax cut is great for poor people etc? But I digress. The point is "Nadar" has less electibility than even Al Sharpton. Maybe even Kucinich. :lol: Hell liberals (like me) hate him more than Republicans!

Jubelum

03-15-2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
This from a former Deaniac. Yeeeah!

Was that THIS "Yeeeah!" (http://homepage.mac.com/jonathanbarlow/.Public/howarddean.mp3) ???

8)

Aquatic

03-15-2004, 08:56 PM

Anyway Powell just wants to keep his job. ;)

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by a_greer
these are the same people that buy crap from guys on tv who says that this magic pill will(fill in the blank) or this workbook will make you an instant million What kind of argument is that? The Republicans want you to be educated, they want everyone to have an equal opporunity to be educated and thus be able to wade through the potential downfalls within the system.

a_greer

03-15-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
Was that THIS "Yeeeah!" (http://homepage.mac.com/jonathanbarlow/.Public/howarddean.mp3) ???

8) <picks up megaphone> close GB and step away from the keyboard...:lol:

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 08:58 PM

Republicans think they Republicans based on a definition that they think it stands for. By being a republican one thinks that they represent equal opportunity, and steady-minded policy. They think that a Republican has a responsibility for himself, and they want to fight the evil liberals who want nothing but to take their money away at the benefit of do-nothings. More social/economic friction against less social/economic friction and value of the individual....

This parody brought to you by the letters M, E, S, I, A, T, O, and H, and by the number 14.78.

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Republicans think they Republicans based on a definition that they think it stands for. By being a republican one thinks that they represent equal opportunity, and steady-minded policy. They think that a Republican has a responsibility for himself, and they want to fight the evil liberals who want nothing but to take their money away at the benefit of do-nothings. More social/economic friction against less social/economic friction and value of the individual....

This parody brought to you by the letters M, E, S, I, A, T, O, and H, and by the number 14.78. What a sad case you are. Liberals think they are so enlightened, they think the Republicans are selfish do nothings...it can go on and on.

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:02 PM

Maybe this Spain attack will show more people that Bush was right, defense is a priority...where does Kerry stand on that? I dont think he even knows. The Democrats dont have a Democrat running this year. They have a do-nothing wannabe.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
What kind of argument is that? The Republicans want you to be educated, they want everyone to have an equal opporunity to be educated and thus be able to wade through the potential downfalls within the system.

No. Just no. No Child Left Behind is a exactly the opposite of its name... Regardless, if you really think the republicans want the american public to be educated they would have come out saying that the american public is wrong about its belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11... etc etc etc...

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
No. Just no. No Child Left Behind is a exactly the opposite of its name... Regardless, if you really think the republicans want the american public to be educated they would have come out saying that the american public is wrong about its belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11... etc etc etc... They never said that. Its called aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
What a sad case you are. Liberals think they are so enlightened, they think the Republicans are selfish do nothings...it can go on and on.

Huh? Do you know what satire is?

God, satire is dead...

I like how you insist on saying what liberals think and all...

Jubelum

03-15-2004, 09:05 PM

Aqu-

1. Yep. China is a problem. But our technology will most certainly outdo theirs on the battlefield. Sure, mass numbers, but with early 80s equipment?

2. Take a pill man. Bush has elitist NE gums too, a Maine Yankee playing cowboy Texas dress-up. Mic or no mic, he said it. Talk to HIM about it. There was no need for B/C to back up the "asshole" thing. Everyone knows that reporter was one of the most anti-Bush attack dogs in 2000. Would I have said it? No... bad politics. Just like Kerry's politics. But you must have missed my earlier post... Bush's comment was about a reporter, Kerry's was about his opponent. (Let's not rehash this again in this thread as in the 3+ others)

3. Be careful with that word. "Hate" - We are competitors, not enemies. And major points for rattling off that string of Bush flusterclucks- (not worth my time) As far as electibility, my PoliSci MA would point to "yes" I do understand that topic. Politicans have to appear as moderate as possible to get elected in America, and this requires a certain level of disingenuous-ness, if a person has any sort of idelogical foundation whatsoever. Except for McCain. He changes sides more than a basketball.

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:05 PM

BTW, since "Bush went into Iraq for oil" why are the prices for oil rising? lmfao, we really are making a killing on it!:no:

Jubelum

03-15-2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by a_greer
<picks up megaphone> close GB and step away from the keyboard...:lol:

Coolest post this week. :lol:

dbamber

03-15-2004, 09:06 PM

Just remember how to to tell when a politician is lying: His lips are moving. Both of these bozos will say what ever they can get away with to get elected. Bush is going to be far more conserative throughout his campaign as he is the sitting president. Kerry in the next couple of days is going to have to throttle back his comments as he will have to shift his campaign strategy from trying to reach the far left liberals who vote in the primaries, to reach the vast middle america voting block who will decide who is going to be president. Not the 125,000 who voted in Iowa, that set this whole Kerry phenomana going!

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
They never said that. Its called aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists.

Yes they didn't say that. Why didn't they set the record straight when the polls came out saying that by far most americans believed he was responsible for 9/11? In fact, why did cheney et al. avoid the question?

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Yes they didn't say that. Why didn't they set the record straight when the polls came out saying that by far most americans believed he was responsible for 9/11? In fact, why did cheney et al. avoid the question? How do you know they avoided it? Jesus, you are a total pessimistic cynic.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
How do you know they avoided it? Jesus, you are a total pessimistic cynic.

Because I saw the interviews... Not a pessimistic cynic... A realistic one.

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Because I saw the interviews... Not a pessimistic cynic... A realistic one. Which interviews? That is besides the point, the reason for the US going into Iraq and what people believe are the reasons for our entrance is why people also thought we just wanted oil. It goes both ways.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:11 PM

Cheney, and several other high level administration people were interviewed on tv last year at about the time that these polls came out...

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Cheney, and several other high level administration people were interviewed on tv last year at about the time that these polls came out... Do you see my other point? It goes both ways. People may well have thought Saddam had something to do with 911, when indeed he did not. People also believed that we went to Iraq to seize and abuse oil, which indeed we did not do.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:13 PM

Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:15 PM

And we did actually go into Iraq to gain control of some oil supply...

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues. Now it comes clear, your voice now holds little weight with me and it should not with others. "R's want the public to not be informed..." WOW!:no:

So sad that you think in such ways.

Jubelum

03-15-2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues.

Here is some Republican "informing." The door swings both ways, m' boy. ;)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcol11.0021.ImageFile.jpg

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:18 PM

Messiahtosh, why does that make my voice lose weight? Both parties realistically do it. It is all a part of the current state of spin....

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Messiahtosh, why does that make my voice lose weight? Both parties realistically do it. It is all a part of the current state of spin.... Wow, are you going to stop BSing already?

Jubelum

03-15-2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
(conservative bastard)

Excellent retort. Run for office. NOW. ;) :lol:

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:22 PM

Um, I am not BSing. I am serious.

Aries 1B

03-15-2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum

With his friend Tom Daschle, voice-over by HAL
http://www.testbed.co.uk/gifs&jpegs/eye.gif
"Hello, electorate... This is Tom..." [/B]

My Red Hell, you're right!

Brilliant!

:lol:

Aries 1B

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)

1. Social change stems from education, which leads to money (if that is your choice) and your ability to be able to wisely support initiatives.

2. The "oppressed lower and middle classes" are more uneducated than oppressed. Elimination of Welfare is antagonistic? It is antagonistic for people to be presented with opportunity and then reject it.

3. A Senator that did not support any major initiatives, with 3 pieces of minor legislation to his name is pathetic by and standards or values when considering effectiveness as a politician. Most senators in an equal position have historically had their names attached to a few dozen or more major pieces of legislation.

4. I consider what policy Kerry has set forth, concerning defense and education as very similar to GWB. Kerry talks this grandiose game that has no real backbone or pipeline for delivery.

Jubelum

03-15-2004, 09:27 PM

Shawn... Class Warfare is very sexy. But we're all a bit oversexed these days, ya know? Second, Republicans are looking for a FLATTER TAX, where everyone pays equally, not according to their "sin" of being "rich." What the hell is wrong with a millionaire and a single mom paying equal taxes for equal protection and service from our govt.

It's a plank of the Communist Manifesto- Progressive Income Tax.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i)Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
- Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
CLASS SYSTEM.

We must reduce the growing gaps in income, education, health care, the standard of living, etc. between the rich and the poor. Tell me how, by redistributing the wealth? We must not reduce the gaps to a massive extent or face the extinction of incentive.

BuonRotto

03-15-2004, 09:29 PM

**sticks head in door**

Don't get into a pissing match with one another. Disagree on points, but don't make it personal.

**pulls out**

SDW2001

03-15-2004, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yes, yes, and no.

Here are the core problems I have with your analysis:

1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)

1. Republicans do not hate or even dislike the poor. Their solution is simply not to keep throwing trillions of dollars at poverty.

2. National healthcare is wrong. Wrong.

3. Social Security was never supposed to be permanment. Never.

4. Reduce the income gap? How? Please...go ahead. I'm listening.

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:34 PM

I love your Sig.:p

Aries 1B

03-15-2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by BuonRotto
**sticks head in door**

Don't get into a pissing match with one another. Disagree on points, but don't make it personal.

**pulls out**

????????

This is one of the most benign theads I've seen in AO in months!

Aries 1B

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:37 PM

Twentieth century medicine made its most significant advances after it was realized that the poor, those who couldn't afford medical care, were the most likely to need the care. It was further realized that the afflictions of the poor became the afflictions of all and that by preventing the illnesses in the poor population, you could stave off massive epidemics that would otherwise affect all classes.
Our nation is only as strong as its weakest link.

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:45 PM

And our weakest link is stronger than most country's strongest.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:47 PM

It took a lot of good programs to get to that point. You wouldn't want to live like our weakest link though... And there is very much room for improvement...

BTW, a class system doesn't create incentive....

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
It took a lot of good programs to get to that point. You wouldn't want to live like our weakest link though... And there is very much room for improvement...

BTW, a class system doesn't create incentive.... No, it took the realization of some of the small number of people on the bottom to come to grips with what they had to do on their own. Programs can only take you so far.

BTW, a class system certainly does support incentive. For some education (teaching others) is stimulating, and money (to have the highest possible quality of life which is afforded to people through our progression in technology, education, and business relations and be able to contribute to things like churches) for others, all sorts of good things can rouse people to action.

SDW2001

03-15-2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
It took a lot of good programs to get to that point. You wouldn't want to live like our weakest link though... And there is very much room for improvement...

BTW, a class system doesn't create incentive....

Once again: WHAT IS YOUR SOUTION?

You cannot have free health care in this nation. It will destroy the finest system in the world. We should focus on major tort reform and insurance regulation to lower premiums. Free healthcare will be a disaster.

SDW2001

03-15-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
It took a lot of good programs to get to that point. You wouldn't want to live like our weakest link though... And there is very much room for improvement...

BTW, a class system doesn't create incentive....

Yes it does. The desire for wealth motivates. This is why financial-need based welfare is a failure. It removes the incentive to work by providing a saftey net. It should be based on mental and physical ability, not financial need.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 09:58 PM

I think our health care system sucks right now. I have a lot of friends who get shitty treatment because their insurance company refuses to pay, or in many cases won't pay until its too late for something to be done.

A lot of the diseases in the country are preventable. Free health education is a start in the right direction...
Why can't we set up a system that pays for a physical every year?

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes it does. The desire for wealth motivates. This is why financial-need based welfare is a failure. It removes the incentive to work by providing a saftey net. It should be based on mental and physical ability, not financial need.

Do you really expect the government to set up the beurocracy needed to asses everyones mental/physical ability?

Aside from that. I work long hours not because I am financially motivated but because I want my current project to get somewhere. Motives exist outside of money. Many motives, most motives, exist outside of money...

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
I think our health care system sucks right now. I have a lot of friends who get shitty treatment because their insurance company refuses to pay, or in many cases won't pay until its too late for something to be done.

A lot of the diseases in the country are preventable. Free health education is a start in the right direction...
Why can't we set up a system that pays for a physical every year?

Yes, our health care system has its faults. There needs to be some improvements and refinements to how it all happens.

Why are we on this issue again, yes, because we trounced your logic on the others. I'm not saying this to be mean, just to reiterate.

Our health system is considered the best in the world. It needs some help, but it is the best. Just because we are the wealthiest nation does that also mean that every american should be given a free car because transit is a necessity?

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
Do you really expect the government to set up the beurocracy needed to asses everyones mental/physical ability?

Aside from that. I work long hours not because I am financially motivated but because I want my current project to get somewhere. Motives exist outside of money. Many motives, most motives, exist outside of money... Motives may not exist for money but they cannot exist in the first place without money. True, a male can go through life never having to reproduce, but what if everyone did that? Again, a very cynical outlook.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 10:05 PM

there exist public transit no?

anyway. my logic wasn't trounced on anything. i like discussing health care reform. i steered the conversation that way.

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
there exist public transit no?

anyway. my logic wasn't trounced on anything. i like discussing health care reform. i steered the conversation that way. You certainly did steer it, or veer it.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
True. but they cannot exist in the first place without money. Again, a very cynical outlook.

Again, a very republican outlook.

The funny thing is I can live for two years on what I have in the bank, but I don't give a rats ass. My research's success drives me, learning about new things drives me. I don't go into lab figuring out how much I earn an hour (at this point it is less than minimum wage)... i go into lab figuring out what I am going to do next to get my molecule made...

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 10:11 PM

You do not see my point. Motivation certainly does spring up from sources besides money. Without money though, the motivation would never exist in the first place. In order to live, be educated, and pursue a motivation, we must have money.

billybobsky

03-15-2004, 10:13 PM

no. no we don't.

bartering. my father sometimes will barter his medical care.

Edit: further in a bartering system, there is no need for a class architecture. perhaps batering is less efficient than money, but the idea is there. money is not an absolute...

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
no. no we don't.

bartering. my father sometimes will barter his medical care.

Edit: further in a bartering system, there is no need for a class architecture. perhaps batering is less efficient than money, but the idea is there. money is not an absolute... Beck, Lost Cause

Your sorry eyes, they cut through bone.
They make it hard to leave you alone.
Leave you here wearing your wounds
Waving your guns at somebody new.

Baby you're a lost
Baby you're a lost
Baby you're a lost cause.

There's too many people you used to know
They see you coming they see you go.
They know your secrets and you know theirs
This town is crazy, but nobody cares.

Baby you're a lost
Baby you're a lost
Baby you're a lost cause.
I'm tired of fighting
I'm tired of fighting
Fighting for a lost cause

There's a place where you are going
You ain't never been before
No one laughing at your back now
No one's standing at your door
That('s) what you thought love was for?

Baby you're a lost
Baby you're a lost
Baby you're a lost cause
I'm tired of fighting
I'm tired of fighting
Fighting for a lost cause.

123

03-15-2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
True, a male can go through life never having to reproduce, but what if everyone did that?

Yes, what?

Messiahtosh

03-15-2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by 123
Yes, what? Cute.

dmz

03-15-2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by BuonRotto
**pulls out**

!!!

.....can you say that on the internet? :wow:

NaplesX

03-15-2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by dmz
!!!

.....can you say that on the internet? :wow: Now that is funny...

Ha

bunge

03-15-2004, 11:00 PM

So now the news says that Kerry wasn't lying.

WHOOPS!

dmz

03-15-2004, 11:01 PM

I heard Alan Keyes the other day, he said Republicans were just liberals who didn't want to pay their taxes.

The AMA, among other interested parties has kept the number of doctors artifically low. This raises the cost of health care. Since everyone in this country lives paycheck to paycheck, we ask for $5 co-pay insurance where anyone with a lowgrade fever can go to the emrgency room. This radically stimulates demand for a fixed resource. Guess what? You just took "economies of scale" and used that power to fu<king pay off the medical industry!

Now you have a bunch of users looking for their next $5 trip to the pill fairy! I am REALLY generalizing here, across multiple user groups, but you have thrown gasoline on a fire.

Also, take an aging (read: dying) culture whose retirees HAVE to have their trips to the pill fairy because losing that extra 150 pounds wasn't as much fun as getting diabetes, and you have another stress on an aritifically small resource. Combine these three factors alone and you have trouble. Throw in nationalized healthcare and you have disaster.

Jubelum

03-16-2004, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by dmz
.....can you say that on the internet? :wow:

Yea, much more benign than having a "premature specification";)
BTW, I could go for one of those right now.

Hassan i Sabbah

03-16-2004, 02:34 AM

For someone who claims to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat, NaplesX, it's really odd, I must say, how you've started two threads attacking Democrats and you defend George Bush at all costs, even when the facts are obviously against you. No?

Wrong Robot

03-16-2004, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
For someone who claims to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat, NaplesX, it's really odd, I must say, how you've started two threads attacking Democrats and you defend George Bush at all costs, even when the facts are obviously against you. No?

Well, you can not be a republican or democrat and still have conservative, right-wing leanings.

either that or naples just likes to argue :\

Hassan i Sabbah

03-16-2004, 03:24 AM

Oh, I see. He's a fascist and Bush is the least-worst option? Kinda like that?

a_greer

03-16-2004, 07:26 AM

with the money that both parties have thrown to poverty, shouldn't all the "poor" be millionairs by now? and poverty in america is equal to the upper crust in nations that actualy have povertv, we are the richest countryon earth, there is no REAL poverty here.

a_greer

03-16-2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by dmz
!!!

.....can you say that on the internet? :wow: let us hope mike powell doesnt read these forums!!!!

NaplesX

03-16-2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Well, you can not be a republican or democrat and still have conservative, right-wing leanings.

either that or naples just likes to argue :\ Please expand on that whole line of reasoning, because I would love to hear it.

I am not affiliated with any political party, nor want to be. I am a mere observer.

Sometimes I like to argue, when I feel I am right I suppose, but the same can be said of most here, so what exactly is your point?

SDW2001

03-16-2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You asshole.

He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.

As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.

NaplesX

03-16-2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.

As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever. I lived in Pittsburgh for years, and I will tell you this, as a machinist and father struggling to survive in a "poor" area, the "poor" lived better than I did and drove new cars and had way nicer cloths than I did. We lived in an area right next to subsidised housing. I made a decent wage at that time.

Now I am not saying there were no actual poor there, but they were extremely difficult to ID visually. anyway.

I have a welfare story that would anger many of you.

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 10:18 AM

trumptman

03-16-2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.

Shawn,

Please produce for me the actual or even estimated number of people that live in what all of us would consider to be true poverty and do so without it being related to lifestyle choices. In otherwords the true people life has shat upon.

Most people are in "poverty" because the government defines them as such due to income. However the "impoverished" still own homes, cars, have televisions, videogame systems, and have a growing obesity problem due to a complete lack of hunger.

Most don't consider that a "poverty" problem even though the government would define them as such. Being against towards income redistribution for folks such as this is not callous. Most of the children in my school receive free or reduced lunch. In fact pretty much 60-70 of all kids in all school do. It is because the guidelines are so broad that everyone is "poor" by their definition. I pointed you toward the Penn State qualification program to show you that even though you drive a fairly new car, own a computer (and likely a wealth of consumer electronics as well,) attend a private university, and live in a large, expensive home, you would qualify for food stamps based off your income.

You would get the services, but you are not truly impoverished, nor will you remain there for life. (at least I hope not)

Walter Williams (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040114.shtml)

Give this a read along with this....

Thomas Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040122.shtml)

You are passing through "poverty" as defined by your income for a short period while attending school. Most young people do this and when you are someday in the top 10% of incomes, it won't be because you oppressed someone. It will be because you gained a degree and earned with it.

Nick

Jubelum

03-16-2004, 12:16 PM

"America will survive until politicians discover they can bribe people with their own money." -- de Tocqueville

Look at where Gore got his votes in 2000. Places with a LOT of government giveaway... people who need the tax advocates to keep redistributing wealth from American "fly-over country" to the never-solved problems of large cities.

People are self-interested beings... and once a program gets rolling, people will take and take until the whole thing collapses. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.

Unfortunately, for every dollar the government spends, someone has to be taxed for that dollar. It is not "free whatever" - someone (you and I) have to pay for it. Look at all the caterwauling over welfare reform under Clinton. Certain people are addicted to government giveaway... and we are all paying for their addiction. (An addiction that is destroying them AND us)

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
-Robert Heinlein_

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 12:22 PM

We have heard this yarn before...

Why don't you all read the facts and then come back here: Welfare Databook (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/Wrd.pdf)

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
We have heard this yarn before...

Why don't you all read the facts and then come back here: Welfare Databook (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/Wrd.pdf) hahahaha "Yarn" he calls it. So sad.

Jubelum

03-16-2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
We have heard this yarn before...

How about you tell me what in my post is not correct, in your view? I mean, tossing a PDF at me does not really answer any of the points I made. ;)

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 12:31 PM

Poverty is defined on a national scale as earning below the national cost of living. So while comparing this to the impoverished in say Guatemala gives you a sense that us americans have it all right, it is not a legitimate comparison when thinking about the overall implications of poverty in this country. I also find the citations of welfare abusers are a bit one sided, because I can certainly cite abuse of Social Security by well off people, and abuse of tax laws by large corporations which have far more profound effects than one person being able to buy a new toyota...

Jubelum

03-16-2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
We have heard this yarn before...

I love fighting with people who think they have a RIGHT to take money I have EARNED, so that someone else can shirk the same responsibilites that I carry each day. Simply amazing. I worked for that money- and they can too... but instead I have the IRS with a gun to my head telling me "you must practice charity!"

:no:

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
How about you tell me what in my post is not correct, in your view? I mean, tossing a PDF at me does not really answer any of the points I made. ;)

Why don't you read the pdf... I wasn't actually responding to the obvious and erroneously thought out remarks you make in your post.

Jubelum

03-16-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
[B] I can certainly cite abuse of Social Security by well off people,/B]

Does that mean I can get your vote to abolish Social Security? Woo HOO!

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
I love fighting with people who think they have a RIGHT to take money I have EARNED, so that someone else can shirk the same responsibilites that I carry each day. Simply amazing. I worked for that money- and they can too... but instead I have the IRS with a gun to my head telling me "you must practice charity!"

:no:

Yeah, I work for my money too. and i believe the government is in a better position than i to do good works with the money i pay in taxes.....

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Jubelum
Does that mean I can get your vote to abolish Social Security? Woo HOO!

Nope... It has problems as all federal systems do...

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 12:45 PM

Jesus Christ man!:no:

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Jesus Christ man!:no:

Does this or anything you have ever written constitute a retort? Is there thought behind the :no:? Is there thought behind using Jesus Christ as your explicative?

Thoth2

03-16-2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Jesus Christ man!:no:

Are you a student at Penn State?

Thoth

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Thoth2
Are you a student at Penn State?

Thoth Why do you ask?

As for the thought behind the comment...The Government has no business in redistributing our wealth, it is just wrong. Get that through your head, equalized opportunity is different than everyone being equal.

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 01:27 PM

What equalize oppourtunity?

Explain how that works... think about it for a second or three...

billybobsky

03-16-2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
equalized opportunity is different than everyone being equal.

And there we have it, ladies and gents. Everyone isn't equal...

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
And there we have it, ladies and gents. Everyone isn't equal... Exactly. Now we are getting somewhere.

Everyone should have the equal ability to succede, not everyone will or even should.

Thoth2

03-16-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Why do you ask?

As for the thought behind the comment...The Government has no business in redistributing our wealth, it is just wrong. Get that through your head, equalized opportunity is different than everyone being equal.

I ask because I wonder if you have Federally subsidized student loans.

jimmac

03-16-2004, 01:59 PM

Wrong Robot

03-16-2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Please expand on that whole line of reasoning, because I would love to hear it.

I am not affiliated with any political party, nor want to be. I am a mere observer.

Sometimes I like to argue, when I feel I am right I suppose, but the same can be said of most here, so what exactly is your point?

Well the first part should have made enough sense, it is possible to not be affiliated with a party and still have right-wind leanings, or left-wing leanings, or to move back and forth as issues that pertain to your well being favor one or the other....etc...etc.

as for you liking to argue, it was just a mere question/comment, in the past few political threads you have been one of the more outspoken, even in the face of tremendous scrutiny and evidence against your cases, but you've still stayed stalwart to whatever cause you had, people that do this, generally don't ever care to change their mind, or let anything change their mind, they just, as I mentioned, like to argue.

this isn't a knock on you, just something I've noticed from a couple years of participating in internet forums, you may or may not fit this description, as with almost everyone who argues here, arguments on the internet are pretty pointless anyway, it's naive to think you'll actually change anyone's mind on something, the best you can hope for is agreeing to disagree, and even that is petty sometimes. Sure there are exceptions, but most of the time, regardless of what people say ("show me evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind") they never actually will, ya know?

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Does a child from an impoverished family have the same opportunity as a child from a wealthy family? Once you realize that we don't have equality of opportunity in this country, you'll come around. The point is to work towards that, by other means than excessive ammounts of do-nothing programs. Equal opportunity is a Republican philosophy, equality is a Democratic dream.

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Thoth2
I ask because I wonder if you have Federally subsidized student loans. I have no such loans, luckily my tuition is only a small amount, since I have academic scholarships and parents that work for the University.

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I'm not certain those are meaningful or even accurate distinctions... They are accurate and meaningful, you just dont want them to be.

NaplesX

03-16-2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Well the first part should have made enough sense, it is possible to not be affiliated with a party and still have right-wind leanings, or left-wing leanings, or to move back and forth as issues that pertain to your well being favor one or the other....etc...etc.

as for you liking to argue, it was just a mere question/comment, in the past few political threads you have been one of the more outspoken, even in the face of tremendous scrutiny and evidence against your cases, but you've still stayed stalwart to whatever cause you had, people that do this, generally don't ever care to change their mind, or let anything change their mind, they just, as I mentioned, like to argue.

this isn't a knock on you, just something I've noticed from a couple years of participating in internet forums, you may or may not fit this description, as with almost everyone who argues here, arguments on the internet are pretty pointless anyway, it's naive to think you'll actually change anyone's mind on something, the best you can hope for is agreeing to disagree, and even that is petty sometimes. Sure there are exceptions, but most of the time, regardless of what people say ("show me evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind") they never actually will, ya know?

Well, you are very astute, because I see the same things. However, I have not participated in threads to change anyone's mind, as I too realize that changing minds is virtually impossible. I make a stand when I see spin and dishonesty. Someone needs to point it out, so I do.

I have said many times I feel there is a place for both liberal and conservative views in real life and in politics. But both need to realise it is a checks and balances issue.

I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 05:09 PM

But it is not a fun world to live in where people dont believe the facts.

audiopollution

03-16-2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.

Just because things make sense to you doesn't make those things right.

Do you have any criteria for determining someones authority on a subject, or which facts to believe? Do you just pick the side that 'feels' right to you?

You seem to have contradicted yourself here.

They're your opinions, I'm just curious.

NaplesX

03-16-2004, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by audiopollution
Just because things make sense to you doesn't make those things right.

Do you have any criteria for determining someones authority on a subject, or which facts to believe? Do you just pick the side that 'feels' right to you?

You seem to have contradicted yourself here.

They're your opinions, I'm just curious. If you mean, do I pick and choose what facts I beleave?

No. That is lala land. But take for instance this whole "bush lied argument", in order to beleive that whole premise you need to assume way to much, IMO. So therefore rather than buy into that line, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. That makes more sense to me.

Don't get me wrong, maybe he did lie, I would not put that past any politician, isn't that the ongoing joke anyway? But I am willing to accept the fact that I do not know everything, and this could go either way. For example, a breaking news story could bring to light that SH really did have WMD and all of sudden some will feel very foolish for jumping the gun.

I would rather err on the side of the president whoever he/she may be.

Wrong Robot

03-16-2004, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, you are very astute, because I see the same things. However, I have not participated in threads to change anyone's mind, as I too realize that changing minds is virtually impossible. I make a stand when I see spin and dishonesty. Someone needs to point it out, so I do.

I have said many times I feel there is a place for both liberal and conservative views in real life and in politics. But both need to realise it is a checks and balances issue.

I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.

You and I are very similar to one another methinks, only, what makes sense to you, seems to be right leaning, and what makes sense to me, tends to be left leaning, that's not saying I wouldn't support either, but more often than not, What comes out of the left makes more sense to me, not necessarily case-by-case, but in general over the past few years I've actually raised an ear towards politics.

but more than anything the divide between right and left is what irks me the most, it seems that people get too caught up with disagree with the other side simply because they are the other side.

Anders

03-16-2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I have no such loans, luckily my tuition is only a small amount, since I have academic scholarships and parents that work for the University.

Ohhh. So THAT is equal opportunity...

audiopollution

03-16-2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
If you mean, do I pick and choose what facts I beleave?

No. That is lala land. But take for instance this whole "bush lied argument", in order to beleive that whole premise you need to assume way to much, IMO. So therefore rather than buy into that line, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. That makes more sense to me.

Don't get me wrong, maybe he did lie, I would not put that past any politician, isn't that the ongoing joke anyway? But I am willing to accept the fact that I do not know everything, and this could go either way. For example, a breaking news story could bring to light that SH really did have WMD and all of sudden some will feel very foolish for jumping the gun.

I would rather err on the side of the president whoever he/she may be.

Thanks for the reply. That's the most pragmatic I've ever seen you - no offense intended.

My issue was with the following comment: "I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue."

Although I think you've somewhat explained that, I'm still interested in knowing if there are any sources that you will accept at face value without question? (Besides any currently elected President, that is. ;) )

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Anders
Ohhh. So THAT is equal opportunity... Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works. So now they are being compensated for their sacrifices and committment.

Anders

03-16-2004, 05:52 PM

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Anders
So what did YOU do to be born by that wonderful family? I am the product of the system's success. Some people are born as products of the system's failures, but then they have the chance to become the success.

Thoth2

03-16-2004, 05:55 PM

-deleted- must read entire post before replying

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Thoth2
By parity of logic, wouldn't poor people/less fortunate people be a product of the system's failures?
Thoth Please re-read.

audiopollution

03-16-2004, 05:57 PM

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 05:59 PM

No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.

The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.

audiopollution

03-16-2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.

The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.

That's the rub, though. The opportunities afforded to you are vastly greater than those who may live in the hypothetical situation I described.

Drop 100 people on a island with equal amounts of supplies and you have equal opportunity (discounting the fact that some people are more capable than others). Unfortunately, what you call equal opportunity only exists at the beginning. Opportunity changes as time passes and generations build upon the successes and failures of their progenitors.

I think there's a problem with semantics here.

Thoth2

03-16-2004, 06:03 PM

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Thoth2
I honestly don't think most Dems, or liberals, or whatever you want to call them, would say that the goal is equal outcome. What I think is the crux of the issue is the means by which the playing field is levelled.
Thoth. But see, you should not be levelling the field by BRINGING PEOPLE DOWN TO BRING OTHERS UP.

Anders

03-16-2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.

The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.

So you really think the republicans are doing that right now?

Before you post please do a search for affirmative action and my username here. I don´t believe in that at all. It should be handled on primary and secondary level of education. BUT leveling the playing field at that age isn´t anything I have seen the republicans do at all. Actually I have seen a lot of the opposite.

Proive me wrong and please a bit more qualified than a few catch phrases.

Thoth2

03-16-2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
But see, you should not be levelling the field by BRINGING PEOPLE DOWN TO BRING OTHERS UP.

I don't think that's what Dems are trying to do - if you refer to the tax system in particular, a flat tax has problems of "bringing people down" just like the graduated system. It just brings down different people than the current system. I think you have to ask which people can best bear the equities or inequities, as the case may be.

Thoth

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Thoth2
I don't think that's what Dems are trying to do - That is exactly what they are trying to do. Kerry = more money taken from the top earners...ouch.

Thoth2

03-16-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
That is exactly what they are trying to do. Kerry = more money taken from the top earners...ouch.

I guess I don't understand your point about more taxation = bringing people down. Is it more fair to give a break to the rich b/c of fortuity of birth (I do realize some of them work hard - I do) and increase the proportion of taxes to income paid by the middle class (they are working within the system to make the future brighter for their kids, too)? That's what a regressive ("flat") tax would do. I realize that the current tax cuts don't bring about a "flat tax" but that is where I think conservatives wish to go. Where's the tipping point of fairness?

Thoth

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 06:27 PM

Wait, youre saying the middle class needs this money for sending kids to college? There are already prograaaams that do that, based on income and number of kids, and need.

audiopollution

03-16-2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Wait, youre saying the middle class needs this money for sending kids to college? There are already prograaaams that do that, based on income and number of kids, and need.

Why not make college/university fully taxpayer funded and entry would be granted through a lottery system?

That's equal opportunity!

I had no idea you were such a socialist. ;)

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 06:32 PM

Socialist? I was making fun of the fact that you want yet more ways to do something that is already being handled through tax payer dollars.

audiopollution

03-16-2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Socialist? I was making fun of the fact that you want yet more ways to do something that is already being handled through tax payer dollars.

I'm not Thoth2.

I'm still playing around with the semantics of 'equal opportunity'.

Thoth2

03-16-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by audiopollution
I'm not Thoth2.

I'm still playing around with the semantics of 'equal opportunity'.

No, you're not, and even if you were he'd be wrong with what I am attempting to talk about.
I was talking about taxes in general - my recent posts have not said anything about educational programs.
So, what about it, M-tosh? What is fair in taxation?
Thoth2

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Thoth2
No, you're not, and even if you were he'd be wrong with what I am attempting to talk about.
I was talking about taxes in general - my recent posts have not said anything about educational programs.
So, what about it, M-tosh? What is fair in taxation?
Thoth2 I do not think the alternative minimum tax is fair.

addabox

03-16-2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works. So now they are being compensated for their sacrifices and committment.

So you're dad was put through college on his inheritence, allowing him to get a good education, allowing him to get a good job, allowing you to have choices of your own.

And as a 19 year old, you have decided that all of this is "the system working" and babble on about "equlity of opportunity" and your fantasies of "income redistribution". I'm sure all that sounds very grown up to you, and cooly hard nosed.

22% of America's young children live in households below the poverty line. Two thirds of these are working poor, meaning wage earners that can't get a job that pays enough to get out of poverty. These are people who couldn't go to college even if they had the money, because they have no savings, and certainly no inheritence.

What poverty means in America, the richest country in the world, is that millions of children go to bed hungry. Their parents would put more food on table if they could, but the money from a minimum wage job only goes so far. You know, jobs, the kind that wealthy business owners "down-size" and "off-shore" because, after all, maximizing profits is best for America.

All this contemptible, ignorant bullshit in this thread about welfare queens and bootstrapping and lazy poor folk living off the dole literally makes me ill. And coming from a bunch of white, privledged tech empowered kids it borders on the obscene. You people have no idea what your talking about, and apparently are perfectly happy to parrot the slogans that you've heard without doing any research into the actual faces and facts of poverty.

If it's such a fcking free ride I wish any one of you could trade places with a poor person, because I guarentee you could not handle it. Bootstrap my ass.

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 08:23 PM

Again, what do you think of the alternative minimum tax?

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
:lol: :D

trumptman

03-16-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by addabox
22% of America's young children live in households below the poverty line. Two thirds of these are working poor, meaning wage earners that can't get a job that pays enough to get out of poverty. These are people who couldn't go to college even if they had the money, because they have no savings, and certainly no inheritence.

They live in households below the poverty line because the government picks a line and calls everything above it "middle class" and everything below it "poverty."

You should also mention that the clear majority of these "households" are single women with children. They also choose to work part time disproportionately and refuse to take jobs with less flexible hours since their priority is children over money. Their income reflects this and it is not a product of some oppression.

The part about college is 100% pure bullshit. Their income would open up an array of grants and loans. They can take a minimum of two years at any community college or (GASP) get a loan to get a well paying trade that then allows them to pay for college in the field they truly wish to study.

What poverty means in America, the richest country in the world, is that millions of children go to bed hungry. Their parents would put more food on table if they could, but the money from a minimum wage job only goes so far. You know, jobs, the kind that wealthy business owners "down-size" and "off-shore" because, after all, maximizing profits is best for America.

100% unbackable bullshit. Most middle class and ALL impoverished children qualify for free lunch at public schools where they are served two meals a day for absolutely free. Study after study shows most children, even in impoverished homes eat out two to three times a week and have a growing obesity problem from ever earlier ages.

Minimum wage jobs are predominately held by students or very young people. They hold them in transitionary times when they are gaining the skill or trade to move on up the ladder. I earned minimum wage when I was 16 and some above it all the way through college. The second I was out of college I started earning real wages. I went from earning a maximum of $7000 a year (poverty) to earning a middle class wage and have every year since then. This is NORMAL. My brother earned minimum wage while going to trade school to become an auto and diesel mechanic. He earns a middle class wage and has every since he graduated. Again this is NORMAL.

Regardless of jobs being off-shored, the per capital income is still rising in America. The reason poverty advocates focus on household incomes is because households are getting smaller and thus it looks like their wages are shrinking when in reality they are rising per person. So a generation ago Dad, Mom and three children might have earned $50k a year with Dad working, mom at home and the three children at school. ($10k per person in the household) Now the single mother with her one child might be earning $25k per year. They are classified as a "household" and thus it looks like the household income has declined. In reality though the household income has gone up to $12.5k per person. The household is much smaller.

In an age of 50% divorce rates, we have more and smaller households. However per capita income is and has been rising.

All this contemptible, ignorant bullshit in this thread about welfare queens and bootstrapping and lazy poor folk living off the dole literally makes me ill. And coming from a bunch of white, privledged tech empowered kids it borders on the obscene. You people have no idea what your talking about, and apparently are perfectly happy to parrot the slogans that you've heard without doing any research into the actual faces and facts of poverty.

Keep spreading your ignorance. I have worked and LIVED in the poorest neighborhoods. I have dealt with this population for over a decade. Go to any social worker and see how much remorse they have for 95% of the population receiving services. The people on the frontlines know them best and know the scams that occur. BTW assuming welfare recipients must be non-white is probably the most racist thing I have heard so enjoy not only your ignornace, but your racism as well.

This is from the Walter Williams link I posted earlier.

From various government reports they find that: 46 percent of poor households actually own their homes; 76 percent have air conditioning; the typical poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities in Europe; nearly 75 percent of poor households own one car, and 30 percent own two or more cars; 97 percent have at least one color television; 62 percent have cable or satellite reception; and 25 percent have cell phones.

A bit more...

According to the 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, only 5 percent of those in the bottom 20 percent category of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. What happened to them? A majority made it to the top 60 percent of the income distribution -- middle class or better -- over that 16-year span. Almost 29 percent of them rose to the top 20 percent.

How many start at the bottom and never move from there? 5%. Of that 5%, how many were drop outs, drug users, lazy, dishonest, criminals, etc?

When you consider that the drop out rate is 25% and somehow only 5% of the population never left poverty, that really says something about the upward pull on income possible in our country if you do pretty much anything more than breath in and out.

If it's such a fcking free ride I wish any one of you could trade places with a poor person, because I guarentee you could not handle it. Bootstrap my ass.

Kiss my ass. I don't have to trade places with them. I WAS THEM retard. My father was a mechanic and my mom was a housewife. We had 4 kids in my household and my financial aide application showed over $10k of unmet need every year that the state college did absolutely nothing to meet. (I can't possible be poor, I'm WHITE) My biological father was a drug addict and my stepfather and biological mother are both alcoholics.

I'll be a millionaire before I'm 40 and a multimillionaire before I retire.

Take your wannbe shit sandwich that you portray and enjoy eating it. Being on the bottom doesn't do anything but motivate you to get moving and get better. If you ENJOY being on the bottom, then there isn't a single thing to government can buy you or give you that will change that.

Nick

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
All I know is that the poor aren't really poor- and even if they are poor, they're poor for a reason! :rolleyes: Ok, ShawnJ--does that J stand for Jimmy Carter? Now go be like him and get out there and DO something about it, since you are so right and passionate about the poor.:no:

trumptman

03-16-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
All I know is that the poor aren't really poor- and even if they are poor, they're poor for a reason! :rolleyes:

According to income, you are poor.

So you can feel free to show us how "poor" you really are.

Nick

Messiahtosh

03-16-2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
According to income, you are poor.

So you can feel free to show us how "poor" you really are.

Nick And he's even posting from a Mac, the most expensive of all computers! haha

Fellowship

03-16-2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by trumptman

Kiss my ass. I don't have to trade places with them. I WAS THEM retard.

Take your wannbe shit sandwich that you portray and enjoy eating it.
Nick

I plan on more travel abroad in future but simply from my trip to Paris I can say that indeed there are poor in many countries not just the US. Any large city will contain poor people and poor live also in rural areas (again in pretty much all countries)

I would hope comments of the like in the quoted materal above are given rest here in AO.

Fellows

addabox

03-17-2004, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
They live in households below the poverty line because the government picks a line and calls everything above it "middle class" and everything below it "poverty."

The federal poverty level for a family of three is about $16,000 a year. That's pretty poor. I'd be curious to know how you'd propose to judge poverty rates in America without "picking a line".

[i]You should also mention that the clear majority of these "households" are single women with children. They also choose to work part time disproportionately and refuse to take jobs with less flexible hours since their priority is children over money. Their income reflects this and it is not a product of some oppression.[/B]

The fact that you think poor single woman are "choosing" to pass on more money because "they're priority is their children", as if they were picking between ballet lessons and brunch, tells me you really and truly don't know anything about poverty and that you have one of the ugliest, most distorted world veiws I've encountered.

[iThe part about college is 100% pure bullshit. Their income would open up an array of grants and loans. They can take a minimum of two years at any community college or (GASP) get a loan to get a well paying trade that then allows them to pay for college in the field they truly wish to study.[/B]

Which funds are constantly being cut. So a single poor working mother is going to go into debt for all of her living expenses and tuition, figure out how to warehouse her kid for free, on the off chance she can get one of those "good paying" tradesmens jobs that apparently are going begging. This is the problem with steeping yourself in right wing viscousness, you start to believe the absurd lies about what the world looks like outside of your comfort zone.

[i]100% unbackable bullshit. Most middle class and ALL impoverished children qualify for free lunch at public schools where they are served two meals a day for absolutely free. Study after study shows most children, even in impoverished homes eat out two to three times a week and have a growing obesity problem from ever earlier ages.[/B]

What the hell is wrong with you? In order to justify your "every man for himself" ugliness, you actually deny that there is any hunger in America. "Study after study shows"? By whom? Because the US dept of agriculture disagrees: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/
Why not go whole hog and just claim there is no such thing as poverty? That way, social programs are not only wrong, but pointless.

[iMinimum wage jobs are predominately held by students or very young people. They hold them in transitionary times when they are gaining the skill or trade to move on up the ladder. I earned minimum wage when I was 16 and some above it all the way through college. The second I was out of college I started earning real wages. I went from earning a maximum of $7000 a year (poverty) to earning a middle class wage and have every year since then. This is NORMAL. My brother earned minimum wage while going to trade school to become an auto and diesel mechanic. He earns a middle class wage and has every since he graduated. Again this is NORMAL. [/B]

Christ. It was normal for you. It's normal for people who have access to some resources, who have a way to move into the opportunity mainstream. The whole point of poverty is it erects barriers to "normalicy", barriers of stress, poor nutrition, access to capital, access to education, access to suport services, etc. How you get from your personal experience to how it therefore must be for everybody is beyond me, but I think that failure of empathy and imagination says a lot about where you're coming from.

[i]Regardless of jobs being off-shored, the per capital income is still rising in America. The reason poverty advocates focus on household incomes is because households are getting smaller and thus it looks like their wages are shrinking when in reality they are rising per person. So a generation ago Dad, Mom and three children might have earned $50k a year with Dad working, mom at home and the three children at school. ($10k per person in the household) Now the single mother with her one child might be earning $25k per year. They are classified as a "household" and thus it looks like the household income has declined. In reality though the household income has gone up to $12.5k per person. The household is much smaller.

In an age of 50% divorce rates, we have more and smaller households. However per capita income is and has been rising.[/B]

Oh for God's sake. Poverty levels are calculated by number of members in a household. Why is it so important to you to believe that poverty and hunger don't exist? Why are you compelled to make shit up and deny easily verifiable facts and distort the rest? Really, I don't understand why any human being, when faced with the reality of suffering, would choose to loudly assert that there is no suffering, just people who choose to not try hard enough.

[i]Keep spreading your ignorance. I have worked and LIVED in the poorest neighborhoods. I have dealt with this population for over a decade. Go to any social worker and see how much remorse they have for 95% of the population receiving services. The people on the frontlines know them best and know the scams that occur. [/B]

Yeah, they're just nasty and lazy and criminal and evil. That certainly solves that problem.

BTW assuming welfare recipients must be non-white is probably the most racist thing I have heard so enjoy not only your ignornace, but your racism as well. [/B]

Now you're scaring me. I haven't said a word about race, but somehow it appears in your mind. Probably a coincidence.

Kiss my ass. I don't have to trade places with them. I WAS THEM retard. My father was a mechanic and my mom was a housewife. We had 4 kids in my household and my financial aide application showed over $10k of unmet need every year that the state college did absolutely nothing to meet. (I can't possible be poor, I'm WHITE) My biological father was a drug addict and my stepfather and biological mother are both alcoholics.

I'll be a millionaire before I'm 40 and a multimillionaire before I retire. [/B][/[/B]

No, you weren't "them" (again with the race stuff, maybe the root of your animosity?)

Take your wannbe shit sandwich that you portray and enjoy eating it. Being on the bottom doesn't do anything but motivate you to get moving and get better. If you ENJOY being on the bottom, then there isn't a single thing to government can buy you or give you that will change that.[/B]

So, at the end of the day, it's all about "enjoying" being on the bottom. Lazy, lazy welfare bloodsuckers. The only people who can maintain that cartoon are people who don't really see the truly destitute in America, or don't want to.

Your rage against this idea seems kinda... over the top. Like you hate these people. But of course we're not talking about race, are we?

trumptman

03-17-2004, 01:53 AM

All this contemptible, ignorant bullshit in this thread about welfare queens and bootstrapping and lazy poor folk living off the dole literally makes me ill. And coming from a bunch of white, privledged tech empowered kids it borders on the obscene. You people have no idea what your talking about, and apparently are perfectly happy to parrot the slogans that you've heard without doing any research into the actual faces and facts of poverty.

Dear Adda,

Note to yourself. When you declare that we are all rich, WHITE, and empowered. Then claim we know nothing about poverty as a result. You have thus declared that poverty is NOT RICH, NOT WHITE, and NOT privledged.

You can now see that you in fact DID bring up race, and I addressed it head on. You can imply in your cowardly way, but I'll call it directly what it is and likewise call you on what you claim.

Now I'll hit a few of your replies. But most of it is nonsense worth ignoring. You did post a link and so let's address it.

You link claims the level of poverty for a family of four is met by 38.1% of households. It claims that out of 100% of households 3.5% of them our food insecure. Food insecure is defined as not having enough food for a healthy active lifestyle on any ONE DAY of the entire year.

Talk about stretching your poor. Out of ALL THE POVERTY FAMILIES in the entire United States. 10% might be food insecure on any one day of the year. It then goes and breaks even that 3.5% down into child hunger.

Take note of the quote...

In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 13.1 million children. Of these individuals, 6.3 million adults and 3.1 million children lived in households where someone experienced hunger during the year. However, even in households with hunger, most of the children were not hungry. In most households, children (especially younger children) are protected from hunger unless hunger among adults in the household becomes quite severe. The number of children living in households classified as "food insecure with hunger among children" was 567,000 (0.8 percent of the children in the Nation).

Note that we are now down from MILLIONS to less than one million being food insecure at any ONE TIME during the entire year. In fact we are at barely half a million children who are "food insecure."

Now take a look at how even that half a million is stretched by looking at the definition for "food insecure." (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/measurement/)

If they answer yes, even once, to any of the following criteria during an entire one year span, then they may end up classified as food insecure.

*Adults ate less than they felt they should.
*They worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more.
*The food they bought didn't last, and they didn't have money to get more.
*They couldn't afford to eat balanced meals.

So the adults gave the kids a bag of cheetos and a bean burrito. They are "food insecure." They worried about running out of food. They are "food insecure."

This isn't callousness. However taking a worry or an unbalanced or less nutritious meal and calling it millions of children starving is just a bold face lie.

Taken from your own sources...

Nick